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

Why We Are Not Best Judges of What Is Good

“Avast yer jabberin, ya bunch a bilge rats!” The voice sounded strange as it reached into the hallway. The speaker was apparently trying to make a point. “Yer division a booty must be… “ he paused to consider his words, “more equitable if ye be wanting to sail with me.”

He had my attention. I was at a work conference in a hotel, wandering the halls during a break, when I happened across this conference room. I peeked inside. It could have been a scene from the latest Pirates movie. Men of various ages with lots of facial hair, many dressed in striped pants, with the occasional peg leg and hook hand. Yes, I had stumbled across a pirates’ convention, the 350th annual, it seemed, from the schedule which I found posted outside.

Pirate Ethics

The speaker’s topic was ethics. He went on to explain what an equitable share of booty amounted to, in his view, using a very modern looking PowerPoint presentation to punctuate his points.

I caught up with him at the break and asked if he had time for a few questions. He seemed a bit suspicious, what with my business casual attire, but nonetheless willing.

“Seriously,” I began. “Ethics for pirates? I mean, for centuries you guys have been boarding and capturing and enslaving people without much regard for ethics. You’ve been known to rape, pillage and plunder, and your personal hygiene is … not the best.” I quickly ended, seeing that I was crossing a line.

A hurt look crossed his face. “Yer words be stingin,” he began, but my words were nothing compared to his breath. I took a step back and tried not to stare at the parrot on his shoulder. “I don’t suppose ye know bout all the good that we do. Why ar ann’l ball raises thousands for the widows n’orphns fund, and we do lots of behind the scenes work ye never be aware of. Last year alone, we returned almost 30 percent of our captured booty to charitable organizations.”

“Is that a fact?” I asked. “I had no idea. But,” I persisted, “this is stuff that you’re stealing.”

Who’re the REAL Thieves?

“We make no excuses for that, m’lad. But we’ve been pretty transparent about that from the beginning, ain’t we? After all, ye had no trouble spotting us for who we are. If ye want the real thievin’ ones, it’s the bankers and lawyers ye want to be houndin…” He pointed down the hall to the lawyers’ convention I had been attending.

Yes, of course I’m making this up. But I think there is a valid point here to be made. Human beings have an amazing capacity to judge themselves on a curve. Pirates no doubt convince themselves that they are somehow justified in doing what they do. They may think of harm they suffered when younger, or may feel that life dealt them the hand that they play. And they no doubt have a set of ethics that they follow, however uncivilized it may seem to us. And many, if pressed, would seek to justify their behavior by reference to all the things they don’t do. “Sure, we kill on occasion. But only those who don’t surrender, or those who for whatever reason need killing.” This is the human condition, whether in a high school, at the office, on a pirate ship, or in a prison. We don’t seem to have the capacity to see ourselves for what we truly are.

I’m Good Enough to Go to Heaven, right?

What does any of this have to do with Christian apologetics? Just this: the number one response of nonbelievers as to why they don’t worry about the afterlife goes something like this. “I don’t know if there is a God, but if there is, he will see all the good that I do and accept me. So, I’m not worried. A good God will see that I am living a good life.”

But holding this view is not that different than the pirates in the analogy above. Compared to others of that ilk, an individual pirate might seem like a good guy. But that hardly would qualify him for life in a peaceful and civilized society. His problem isn’t how he compares to his fellows, but how he measures up to the place he’s trying to get to. He may think himself “good” when in an objective sense he is anything but. Similarly, many people today believe they have a proper sense of what “good” human behavior is, but how can they know for sure when they are mired in the corruption of their nature? And more importantly, have they given any thought to what “perfect” behavior requires? What a perfect being might use to measure admission to His realm?

We’re Not As Good As We Think We Are

It’s easy for us to pat ourselves on the back for our goodness. But perhaps we are a bit too smug. Our persistent feelings of guilt serve as a guide – a reminder – that all is not well. They serve to call us to account to the One who left us here, and who expects something of us if we are to be in relationship with Him. These feelings of guilt provide the backdrop of bad news, the kind of news from which we naturally shy away. The kind of bad news that sets the stage for the ultimate Good News of the gospel.

So, next time you encounter this response, you might suggest that the nonbeliever consider his frame of reference. Immersed in a sinful culture, inhabiting flesh and blood bodies whose weakness overcomes the willingness of the spirit, we may be as unable to see ourselves for what we truly are as the fictional pirates above would be. In short, we may not be in the best position to know if we are as “good” as we pretend.

We Need a Savior

Fortunately, there is a better answer, one that does not require us to earn our way back to God’s presence. But until we see our need for a Savior, we’re not likely to find the answer that is waiting to set us free.

The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction. 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:22-24 (HCSB)

 

 


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

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

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Old Testament vs. New Testament God: Anger vs. Love? (MP3 Set) (DVD Set) (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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. 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

/by

The True Meaning of ‘Headship’ and ‘Head Coverings’ for Women: A Theological Perspective of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

,

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the apostle Paul addresses the topic of head coverings for women, a subject that has sparked much debate, confusion, and substandard interpretations throughout history. In order to truly understand Paul’s meaning, my goal is to provide a proper exegesis and interpretation that upholds the purity of the text and lends itself to how we are to show unity and equality among men and women.

Respect the Context

Contrary to misconceptions, Paul’s intention was not to demean women or diminish their role in the home or society. Instead, he addressed the issue of proper respect within marriage and worship. Before delving into 11:2-16, however, it is only appropriate to set the stage before turning back to the previous chapter. In 1 Corinthians 10:31-33, Paul writes,

“So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.”

All to God’s Glory

Before discussing “headship” and “head coverings,” Paul establishes a fundamental principle to guide Christians in their daily lives. We are to honor God in everything we do and to love others as we share the gospel with those who are perishing.

Paul’s Fundamental Principle: We are to honor God in everything we do and to love others as we share the gospel with those who are perishing.

Keeping this guiding principle in mind, let us try to understand what Paul meant in 11:2-16. From the context, it is clear that Paul is attempting to rectify the misuse of freedoms leading to division and inappropriate behavior. His primary concern is not about men and women (in general) but rather about the testimony of a husband and wife faithfully living out their marriage before God in church and society.

In verse three, Paul writes,

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”  To understand the word “headship” used by Paul, we must understand its historical and cultural context. The Greek word is kephalé, which translates as “head” but also carries broader meanings such as “authority” or “source.”

Hints at the Trinity

Paul’s approach is intriguing because he refers to the relationship within the Triune Godhead before acknowledging the esteemed roles of a husband and wife. Paul does this to connect our relationships that ought to reflect the perfect unity shared with the Triune Godhead.

Each Person of the Trinity is a subsistence of the same substance. Yet, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct (not divided) in their functions (operational roles) in the economy of salvation. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul elaborates on this very point, “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”

Similarly, Paul emphasizes the significance of headship within the framework of God’s divine order in the context of marriage. Paul refers to the husband’s and wife’s unique roles and responsibilities, reflecting both the unity and diversity within the Trinity. He did not imply that headship means a husband ruling over his wife or suggest that qualitative differences between women indicate they are inherently inferior to men.[i]

Sacrifice and Submission

In Ephesians 5:21-33, the apostle Paul emphasizes the sacrificial love that husbands should have towards their wives while highlighting the importance of wives voluntarily respecting their husbands. This passage explains that marriage is meant to exemplify Christ’s relationship with his church, where both husband and wife have distinct roles but are equal in value before God. Therefore, having a harmonious partnership where both spouses honor and support each other is essential.

The Meaning of Head Coverings

The second controversial verse from Paul is as stated:

“For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. but since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head” (11:5).

To fully grasp the meaning and underlying principles behind head coverings in this passage, it is essential to explore cultural and historical contexts. It was not customary for Corinthian women to cover their heads as it was for Jewish women. Many of the upper-class Greek women would flaunt their hairstyles, causing a clash with less privileged women and Jews. In Paul’s day, it was customary for women (in the ­­Ancient Mediterranean) to cover their heads in public or among strangers as symbolic representation of modesty and submission. In Genesis 24:65, Rebecca veiled (Hebrew tsaciph) herself in the presence of Isaac.

By wearing a veil or covering their heads during worship or public gatherings, women demonstrated their acknowledgment of societal norms and their commitment to honor their husbands as leaders within their homes. If a Jewish woman revealed her long hair in public, she was either in mourning or she was being publicly humiliated as an accused adulteress. Additionally, if a woman took off her head covering (veil or scarf) in the worship service, it could be a sign or suggestion that she was withdrawing from her husband and “available.” Because of that, if a wife were participating in church, she would keep her veil over her head to avoid people thinking several things: (1) she was abusing her freedom, (2) rejecting honor to God, and (3) disrespecting her husband by making a public gesture that she was promiscuous.

Furthermore, when Paul was writing, temple prostitutes were known for wearing their hair very short and not covering their heads. Thus, giving weight for Paul to advise against adopting a similar appearance to avoid giving the wrong impression and causing others to stumble.

Paul Was Teaching About Dignified Femininity Not About Fashion

It is important to understand that the topic of head coverings was related to cultural norms and not a command given by Paul for Christians today. The underlying principle behind the advice of wearing head coverings is to behave with dignity, avoiding actions that might lead to division or cause others to stumble.

When we honor God and strive to do good for others, our witness is beyond reproach in marriage, family, and society, as Paul mentions in his overarching principle in 1 Corinthians 10:31-33.

In light of these considerations, it becomes evident that Paul’s teachings on headship and head coverings is rooted in promoting harmony within marriage rather than enforcing gender inequality.

Although cultural practices may differ across different societies and periods, what remains crucial is the need for mutual respect and honoring one another in our relationships, particularly in marriage.

By understanding these principles, we can appreciate the importance of head coverings and uphold equality and respect between spouses in accordance with biblical teachings.

 

References:

[i] Editor’s Note: This statement depends on what one means by “ruling/over.” There is no domineering, authoritarian, or overbearing sense of “ruling” within the Trinity, nor should there be any such “ruling” within marriage. There is, however, a dignified distinction in responsibilities where God the Father and God the Son can have different job descriptions – at least for a time – and that can be reflected in different authority roles between husband and wife.

 

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Old Testament vs. New Testament God: Anger vs. Love? (MP3 Set) (DVD Set) (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

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

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

 

 

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: https://bit.ly/3TdiSfN

 

/by

In the Image of God: The Battle for Human Identity

, ,

Introduction

Human origins is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity.

The age-old debate about God’s existence has great implications on this area of the debate about human origins. The Judeo-Christian claim that all humans are created in God’s Image and that humans possess a sin nature that will cause them to tend toward the immoral. These paradoxical doctrines together explain both the greatness and wretchedness of humanity that we see everyday, throughout history, and expect in the future.

The Image of God

If we are created in the image of God that means that all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value. If this is false, then humans are not valuable in virtue of their being human but in virtue of a myriad of other characteristics and stati that change in fashionability with the culture. One moment a human can be valuable and the next moment they are not. If humans do not have value at any point, that gives justification for their expendability (murder) at the hands of those who have power over them at that point. If humans are not created in the image of God, then there is nothing wrong with humans abusing their power against other humans. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Image of God in humans places the very lives of every human at risk.

Human Sinfulness

Genesis also records that Adam and Eve sinned against God and with that action brought the sin nature into all future humans. Humans are not born good or even neutral. This means that the abuse of power described above is not just possible but inevitable. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Fall or for the transfer of the sin nature (whether through the biological, spiritual, or some combination) denies this element of human psychology, sociology, and history. 

Denying Both?

Any model that does not allow for one or the other already makes human lives less worthy of protection because either it is not worth protecting or there is nothing to necessarily protect against. But if a model denies both, then that is a recipe for disaster. This means that the debate about human origins is not just a scientific question but also a philosophical one, even for the atheist or naturalist. An interesting analysis of the implications of these two characteristics is provided in Os Guinness’ book “The Magna Carta of Humanity” which I highly recommend, particularly for those involved in human origins discussions and debates. It provides a renewed urgency for the importance of the debate about human origins.

Should Theology Judge Science?

I often hear the claim that many Christians allow their theology to determine their interpretation (and maybe even rejection) of the scientific data. The implication is that we should not allow any knowledge discipline (or at least, theology) other than science in developing our model or that we should at least give precedence to science.

It is important to recognize at this point the distinction between “science” and “data of nature.” The data that is discovered is the raw information that must be accommodated in any model, whereas “science” is the interpretation (which is fallible, but not necessarily false) of that data. Because multiple sources of truth (philosophical and historical as described above, and not just the natural data) exist about humans, the data of each must be recognized and accommodated in any model of human origins that claims to accurately reflect the natural history of human origins (what really happened). Just as the data of nature can judge our interpretation of the data of history and Scripture, the data of history and the data of Scripture can judge our interpretation of the data of nature in virtue of their being true.

We cannot allow an epistemic (knowledge) posture of strong or even weak scientism to prevent our discovery of the correct model of human origins. To do so, would be dangerous.

Conclusion

With the work in the field of human origins being done at numerous Christian organizations, the number of possible models and level of detail may seem confusing to many yet exciting to others. But they are important for all of us. I encourage these organizations to continue (or begin) working together to gather all the data that each emphasize in their respective models and adjust those models to reflect the data provided by others. We need to be careful and respectful of any accusations of heresy- ensure that our accusations are demonstrably reflective of the model not the Christian, and that we address such accusations with or adjust our models based on the biblical data and logic. It is important that even though we may disagree on details that we present a united front that is based on the data and sound reasoning from that data, not only for the future of humanity, but as a demonstration of the unity and love that Christ prayed for and told us that unbelievers will see. We need to not only demonstrate the truth of these important Christian doctrines (ones that are often under attack and used as excuses to reject Christ) but we need to emphasize our love, respect, cooperation, and dedication to truth that unbelievers often overlook.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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)

Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

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

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/49DBeNf

 

/by

The Most Important Question

,

It wasn’t too long ago we finally finished putting the Christmas decorations away at our house. The process caused me to reminisce about the time we had enjoyed with family and celebrations with our church family both this year and in years past. As each year passes, I am increasingly burdened by the chasm between the secular “Christmas” celebrated by society and the true meaning of Christmas–the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

I ponder the great effort put forth by retail companies (think gifts and décor) and the entertainment industry (movies, concerts, and special events in the name of the “special season”) and can’t help but marvel at the effort to capitalize on the season all while wholly rejecting the reason behind it.

This season, I was reminded of a very important question, arguably the most important question each one of us must answer. All three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) record Jesus asking his disciples “Who do you say that I am?” Considering the confusion at Christmas and what event it truly marks, I would challenge you to consider your own answer to this question. Who do you say Jesus is?

Jesus’s Two Questions

Jesus and his disciples made their way to an area known as Caesarea Philippi, located north of the Sea of Galilee and near the base of Mount Hermon. It is a beautiful, lush, park-like area that has some of the beginning waters of the Jordan River running through it. Like many places during the time, the name was chosen to honor the current Caesarean and local ruler, Philip the son of Herod the Great.[i]

In addition to the beautiful nature there are ruins of pagan Roman worship. Today one can walk along the side of a hill into which is carved numerous niches that might have held statues of Roman gods and goddesses. There are areas that were once foundations for temples to both one of the Caesars and other gods. There is a particularly looming grotto dedicated to the god Pan (see attached picture). According to a local guide this grotto once involved the sacrifice of infants to the god Pan. This was the physical environment that served as a backdrop to Jesus’ two questions.

This is Matthew’s account of the conversation:

“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven…”
– Matthew 16:13-17 (HCSB; see also Mark 8:27-29 and Luke 9:18-20)

The Question of the Populace’s Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus begins by asking them what the general population said about his identity. In general, the response was, somebody good, important, and/or wise. John the Baptist or a prophet, like those through whom God spoke in the Old Testament. Obviously, someone who knew the things of God and seemed to live in his favor. How would you answer Jesus’ first question today? I would suggest the answers would be somewhat similar. While not citing specifically Old Testament prophets, many call him a prophet. Others consider him a good, moral teacher.

The Question of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus makes his second question personal. He specifically asks the disciples who they say he is. We are wise to feel the same question pointed directly at us. Who do I (insert your own name) say Jesus is? The disciples couldn’t hide behind the prevailing popular answer. While it is impossible to detect whether there were any pauses in the conversation through the written version, Peter seems to answer without hesitation– “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” How would you answer that question? Would you hesitate and need to think about your answer?

How the Bible Answers the Questions

Jesus tells Peter he is correct and knows the answer because God revealed it to him. The disciples had heard Jesus’ teaching and witnessed the miracles he performed while following him in his ministry.

The Bible is replete with passages that tell us about the identity of Jesus, God’s Son, sent as our Savior to redeem us from our sin, sin that entered the world through Adam and Eve in the early pages of Genesis. The length of this article allows space to note just a few of the places we are told about Jesus’ identity.

The Testimony of Jesus

Jesus himself tells us He is the Son of God. In the verses discussed above, Jesus tells Peter he is correct when he identifies Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. In his High Priestly prayer (John 17), Jesus identifies himself as God’s son (John 17:1) and repeatedly calls God his father (17:1; 17:5; 17:11 etc.). Jesus makes claim to his divinity in the account of the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). Friends had lowered the lame man through the roof of a house to gain access to Jesus, believing he could heal him. Jesus begins by telling the man his sins are forgiven (2:5) and then ultimately provides physical healing (2:11b). It is the claim to have the authority to forgive sins that infuriates the religious leaders who acknowledge only God can forgive sins.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

John the Baptist, at the baptism of Jesus, testified, “…He is the Son of God.” (John 1:34). Before John the Baptist was even born, he responded to Jesus’s identity from within his mother’s womb. Luke records Jesus’s mother Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth, who was John’s mother. Both women were pregnant at the time and upon Mary’s arrival, John, within his mother’s womb, “leaped” within Elizabeth when she heard Mary’s voice. (Luke 2:41) Elizabeth told Mary of John’s reaction, asked how it was possible the “mother of my Lord” would visit her (Luke 2:43), and told her all that the Lord had told Mary would be fulfilled. Earlier in chapter 2, Luke recorded the angel’s announcement to Mary that she would become pregnant and have a son. This son “will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 2:35b)

The Testimony of God the Father

God himself specifically identified Jesus as his Son at both his baptism and transfiguration. At his baptism, Mark records that when Jesus came up out of the water, a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son; I take delight in You!” (Mark 1:10-11)

Matthew documents the transfiguration of Jesus in chapter 17. While gathered high on a mountain with Peter, James and John, Jesus was transformed in front of them. Moses and Elijah also appeared. “While he was still speaking suddenly a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said: This is My beloved Son. I take delight in Him. Listen to Him!” (Matt 17: 1-5)

Conclusion

While Christmas, and all its trappings that deviate so far from the whole event at the root of the holiday, is in the review mirror of life for another year, Jesus’ question is still in front of us. Who do you say he is? Peter and so much of scripture provide the right answer–Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. I will argue there is then a follow-up question of equal importance–what are you going to do with that answer?

Are you going to respond to his invitation to repent and follow him? Will you accept the fact that he has stood in your place, taking the just wrath of God as penalty for your sin on your behalf? Will you submit to him and enjoy forever a right relationship with the one and only true God? It is my prayer that you will. If you have questions about becoming a follower of Jesus, please go to Bellator Christi’s main menu and click on the “How to Become a Christian” tab.

References: 

[i] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN.: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 248.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michelle Johnson earned a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. She also earned her M.A. in Theological Studies and her M.Div. in Professional Ministries at Liberty University. Michelle graduated from the University of Minnesota with her undergraduate degrees. She and her husband Steve live in Mankato, Minnesota. Michelle and Steve attend Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie where Michelle serves on the Global Partner Care Team. In addition to her love of theology and apologetics, Michelle also has a passion for historical studies, particularly the theology of the Patristics. When she is not spending time reading or writing, Michelle can often be found dreaming of her next travel adventure or enjoying a great cup of coffee. Michelle Johnson serves as the Executive Vice-President and Managing Editor of Bellator Christi Ministries.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3I3EcPB

 

/by

The Satanic Temple Abortion Clinic: A Critical Assessment

The Satanic Temple (TST) is at it again. The atheistic left-wing activist group is already known for starting afterschool Satan clubs,[1] erecting unholy statues at government buildings,[2] and trying to carve out religious exemptions to pro-life laws.[3] Now they have opened an online abortion clinic.[4] Abortion clinics are not uncommon. And TST has a history of abortion activism. But this abortion clinic stands out for two reasons.

TROLL LORDS

First, the clinic is named “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” an obvious troll move.[5] TST is so well-known for trolling it is not just a side quest, but a lifestyle.[6] Their inception, according to the New York Times, was designed as “a mischievous thorn in the side of conservative Christianity.”[7] Stated positively, they could teach a masterclass on trolling. They take adolescent snark, infuse agitational protesting, incorporate theatrics, and beef it up with a cadre of lawyers till it becomes a whole socio-political methodology. And make no mistake, they are dead serious about it.

For TST, trolling is a mode of political activism advancing their ideology, which they expound as Seven Fundamental Tenets.[8] These guiding statements are roughly what could be expected at the crossroads of progressive politics and New Atheism. So far, their primary focus has been religious freedom in the public square. Their trolling is a way of stretching “religious freedom” till it breaks. Instead of supporting robust religious freedom where Christianity, the majority religion, holds a measure of cultural privilege and influence in the public square, TST aims at a more austere separation of church and state. This Troll Lord approach has not yet blown up in their faces. But this abortion clinic might be the spark that does it.


RITUAL ABORTION

The second reason distinguishing this clinic is that it treats abortion as a religious ritual. In their own words: “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic™ is an online clinic that provides religious medication abortion care. The clinic provides abortion medication via mail to those in New Mexico who wish to perform The Satanic Temple’s Religious Abortion Ritual.”[9]

Yes, TST abortion services are touted as “religious rituals,” but these are not surgical abortions with blood-smearing child sacrifices. This is an online mail-order clinic. The New England-based Satanic Temple offers only medication (pill) abortion[10] through an unnamed pharmacy in New Mexico. The “rituals” are something between semi-religious motivational self-talk on one end and a legal formality on the other.[11]

First, TST is protesting the oft-scorned U.S. Supreme Court case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).[12] The clinic’s namesake, Justice Samuel Alito, penned the majority decision in Dobbs, the monumental ruling that overturned both the Roe v. Wade (1973)[13] and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)[14] decisions.

Second, TST maintains they are helping to fill a healthcare void for women as states roll back abortion-choice laws in the post-Roe era. Even in pro-choice states like New Mexico (as of 2023), where TST’s clinic is based, these medication abortion services, supposedly, could offer more privacy and access than is currently available at traditional abortion clinics.

Third, they are potentially circumventing future anti-abortion laws through a religious exemption. If a woman identifies as a TST member, then, theoretically, she could bypass abortion bans and get an abortion under the protection of First Amendment “religious freedom.” Her federal-level right could bypass state-level anti-abortion laws.[15]

Fourth, they stand to grow their membership if this religious exemption route works. If they can carve out a federally protected religious exemption against state-level abortion laws, then they will have effectively overturned the Dobbs decision, but only for members of The Satanic Temple. That is a strong incentive for people to join TST.

Fifth, TST stands to make a fortune from tax-exempt “religious” donations, as abortion-choice activism is a left-wing goldmine right now.[16]

Sixth, beyond just exploiting religious tax exemptions, they might explode them. Religious tax exemptions have their basis in a pluralistic “religious freedom” interpretation of the First Amendment. But opposing that view is the secular sense of “separation of church and state.” In this view, the First Amendment is thought to mandate strictly secular governance.[17] Judicial history favors the pluralistic view.[18] TST seems to favor the secular view. TST could make religious tax exemptions so offensive that all such exemptions are revoked.

Strategically speaking, by calling their abortion services a “religious ritual,” they stand to benefit materially and advance their cause, at least in the short term. But they may have overplayed their hand. There are brands of Satanism that practice “black” magic and or believe in a literal Satan.[19] TST, however, is not one of them. There are different denominations, so to speak, of Satanism; and while some arguably have a place for , The Satanic Temple is not like that.[20] TST does not see their rituals as child sacrifices to Satan since they do not believe God or Satan exist. Yet in claiming abortion as a satanic ritual, they can .

 

HEALTH RISKS WITH PILL ABORTIONS

Medically speaking, TST risks undercutting their pro-choice aims by aligning with an especially dangerous abortion method. At a surface level, they are proudly pro-choice. And opening an abortion clinic is very pro-choice. That seems consistent enough. But, at a deeper level, they are also trying to promote women’s health. In their words, “TST is taking many steps…to establish exemptions from laws that do not promote the health and safety of patients.”  [21] They also try to conform their beliefs to the “best scientific understanding of the world” and “strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.”[22] But medication abortion significantly increases health risks for mothers.[23] That is not very compassionate, empathetic, or healthy. These increased risks can be difficult to see through a partisan political lens, but with an eye for humanitarianism and good solid science, the risks become evident. What are those health risks?

First, if a woman has a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, the pill regimen will very likely not work on her.[24] She will remain pregnant with a looming fatal complication. But because she had the abortion pill, she believes she is no longer pregnant, and she may well not know she is in harm’s way.

Second, if women use abortion pills to secure an abortion without clinical visits, they can unwittingly terminate future pregnancies, rendering themselves infertile if they are Rh-negative.[25] The blood type Rh-negative (i.e., A-negative, B-negative, AB-negative, and O-negative blood) is a common blood type affecting 15 percent of the population. It often lingers undetected without affecting one’s health. A pregnant woman seeking chemical abortion may never know she is Rh-negative. But with that condition she will need Rh D immune globulin (RhoGAM) at the time of her pill regimen.[26] Otherwise, her body will form “antibodies against the fetal blood cells, which can result in catastrophic immune rejection of the fetus in a subsequent pregnancy.”[27] Medication abortion would not just complicate this pregnancy but imperil future pregnancies, causing stillbirths, neonatal deaths, and brain injuries, and can make her infertile.[28]

Third, medication abortions are self-administered. The first pill, mifepristone, may or may not be given in the clinic. But the second pill is self-administered, at home two days later. That pill, misoprostol, is the primary active agent expelling the pre-term child. A host of side-effects routinely happen at this stage.[29] But being at home, she has no direct clinical supervision. The pregnant mother has to guess whether her bleeding, cramping, nausea, and so forth are bad enough for a visit to the emergency room. She is not a licensed physician, and likely not experienced with this sort of thing. She cannot be expected to know when her severe cramping is too severe or when a lot of bleeding becomes too much bleeding. Nor can she be expected to know if the abortion was complete. Yet any remains left in-utero can cause further complications, such as infection, sepsis, or death. If she is using chemical abortion to keep her pregnancy a secret or to stay anonymous, then even if she goes to the emergency room for complications, as she should, she will likely have to drive herself. Severe cramping and hemorrhaging become doubly dangerous when you are stuck in traffic. Moreover, she will lose minutes, perhaps hours, at a time when seconds count. Additionally, chemical abortion risks are likely much higher than reported due to hospitals misreporting chemical abortion complications as miscarriage complications.[30]

Furthermore, chemical abortion is designed for early-stage abortions, up to 49 days (seven weeks). Even Planned Parenthood says that after eleven weeks, pill abortion is not recommended.[31] Its effectiveness declines between eight and eleven weeks, from about six percent to thirteen percent chance of failure.[32] Beyond that threshold, effectiveness drops, and complication rates worsen. All these facts together explain why medication abortions generate roughly four times more medical complications and injuries compared to surgical abortions.[33] These risks also help explain why the FDA currently faces challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court for rolling back medical regulations surrounding pill abortion (see FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine).

Fourth, coerced abortion is not “pro-choice.” Yet self-administered abortions are notoriously difficult to screen for coercion. Pregnant women are often pressured into an abortion by an abuser, a partner, parents, or friends. Abusers can use abortion to destroy evidence that might otherwise incriminate them for rape or molestation. For parents it may be a way to protect the reputation of the family, or to punish the daughter. Or it could just be an overbearing or negative influence pressuring her into an abortion. A 2023 peer-reviewed study showed that only 33% of women who had abortions wanted their abortion, and 24% of women surveyed described their abortion was coerced[34] Abortion-choice advocacy, TST included, hinges on abortion being a choice. But compared to pro-choice rhetoric, the ugly reality of coerced abortion tells a different story. Women are exploited for sexual gratification, then tossed aside to fend for themselves, or threatened with abandonment, or abused till they kill their children-in-utero. That is a far cry from women’s liberation.

The convenience and privacy of pill abortions can make them sound like a panacea for sexually liberated society. But the reality is not so pretty. Pill abortion means less medical supervision, more coercion and social isolation, and around 400 percent more complications and injuries for women. In this way, The Satanic Temple is drifting into a basic pro-abortion posture at the expense of being “pro-science,” “pro-choice,” and “pro-woman.” If the TST really wants to promote women’s health and freedom while staying pro-choice, they should at least wait till chemical abortion and health regulations improve so TST isn’t left contradicting their own aims.


BAD PRESS FOR PRO-CHOICE

Besides the heightened health and social risks with pill abortions, there is a glaring publicity problem with satanic ritual abortions. When people hear about the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” they are liable to interpret it as child sacrifice. That is not what TST is trying to do here, but that is still how their marketing sounds. Yet any affiliation between abortion and child sacrifice is bad press for the pro-choice cause.

Most pro-lifers already believe abortion is child sacrifice — metaphorical or not, intentional or not. From a pro-life Christian perspective, abortion-choice culture looks like modernized Molech worship (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut. 12:31; 18:10; Jer. 7:31; Ezek. 16:20–21). Instead of sacrificing born babies on the temple altar to Satan’s hoards, The Satanic Temple is sacrificing preborn babies on the altar of convenience. They are not just helping women with their abortions; they are enlisting women to perform satanic ritual abortions.

In this way, The Satanic Temple is stepping on a rake of their own making. They are declaring abortion to be a satanic ritual, just like pro-life Christians have warned all along. Sure, TST might think this ritual is little more than a self-help therapy session; but people don’t have to believe in Satan to do his bidding.


SUMMONING TASH

In C. S. Lewis’s Narnia-series classic, The Last Battle (1956), Lewis portrays an epic showdown where a few opportunistic tricksters perform a summoning ritual for a false god named Tash. They don’t even believe in Tash. They go through the motions, pretending to summon Tash, to trick the audience. But lo and behold, Tash arrives. And he is terrifying. Some Tash followers were insincere, playing games on the spiritual battlefield, taking none of this religious stuff seriously. Yet they still served Tash. In the same way, one does not have to believe in Satan to serve him. One does not have to believe in spiritual warfare to be victimized by it either. Worse yet, people can blindly victimize others thinking they are helping. The abortion-choice campaign in the U.S. alone has devoured over 65,000,000 innocent casualties, largely under the banner of empowering women.[35] Slick marketing or a slippery slope, it’s the same difference. Murderous evil can march under right-wing or left-wing banners, religious or secular, human or divine. Yet the test for discerning evil is not in winsome rhetoric, party allegiance, or good intentions, but whether that act is in fact evil.

It matters little whether TST advocates believe in a literal Satan, or in ritual child sacrifice. They can perform child sacrifice to Satan all the same. In this way, TST is inadvertently embracing some of the most pointed critiques against abortion-choice.

People can be casualties, and unwittingly create casualties, without even knowing a war is raging. People can do all sorts of consequential things, without recognizing the weight of their actions till it is too late. They can even sacrifice living human beings to a false god and a real demon, without believing in gods or demons.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Satanic Temple is predictably doing what they have done before, exploiting their cartoonishly dark and villainous branding to agitate the public and pester the Christian Right into a judicial showdown. Only this time, they have gone so far to bait the Christian Right; they have come full circle. They stepped into the crosshairs of one of the fiercest critiques abortion-choice has ever faced. All those abortions they helped facilitate, killing new human beings every time, and all the harms to women emotionally, socially, and physically because of those abortions — all of that behavior will ultimately weigh on every Satanic Temple member (or anyone else) who helps make it happen. I don’t mean to sound like a fear-baiter. I just say that as a warning against the hubris of scientifically ill-informed activism. No amount of good intentions can redeem bad policy. And for all the value found in bodily autonomy, which TST affirms, it does not excuse deliberately killing tiny, innocent, defenseless human beings. If we, as a society, are going to live up to the huge responsibility of humanitarianism, we need to prioritize protecting the most defenseless members of society from discrimination, oppression, and especially targeted killing. That includes sex-selective killing, race-based killing, ability-based killing, exploitation of women, and child abuse. Abortion-choice policy fails on all those accounts.[36] If TST were more consistent with their own stated values, they would walk back this pill-abortion clinic. And if we as a society were more serious about humanitarianism, we could admit that women deserve better than the septic social band-aid of abortion-choice policy.

REFERENCES:

[1] Joe Bukuras, “Judge Orders PA District to Allow After School Satan Club to Meet on School Grounds,” Catholic News Agency, May 4, 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254246/judge-orders-pa-district-to-allow-after-school-satan-club-to-meet-on-school-grounds.

[2] James Farrell, “Why a Satanic Holiday Display at the Iowa Capitol Building Has Been Allowed to Stay Up Despite Backlash,” Forbes, December 13, 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2023/12/13/why-a-satanic-holiday-display-at-the-iowa-capitol-building-has-been-allowed-to-stay-up-despite-backlash/.

[3] Daniel Payne, “Satanic Temple Loses Lawsuit against Indiana Pro-life Law,” Catholic News Agency, October 27, 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255839/satanic-temple-loses-lawsuit-against-indiana-pro-life-law.

[4] “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple (2023), accessed January 10, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic.

[5] Co-founder of TST Malcom Jarry said, “in 1950, [Supreme Court Justice] Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options and look what happened.” John Lavenburg, “New Mexico’s Bishop’s Shudder at Prospect of ‘Satanic’ Abortion Clinic,” Crux, February 10, 2023, https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2023/02/new-mexicos-bishops-shudder-at-prospect-of-satanic-abortion-clinic.

[6] This reputation for “trolling” appears in their “Frequently Asked Questions” page. They don’t evade accusations of “trolling” and deny it’s merely for attention. TST, “Frequently Asked Questions: Is TST a Media Stunt/Hoax/Trolling, Etc.?,” The Satanic Temple, c. 2019, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq. For an unofficial list of TST activist trolling, see “Timeline of The Satanic Temple,” SFGate, January 9, 2019, https://www.sfgate.com/nation/slideshow/Timeline-of-the-Satanic-Temple-188753.php.

[7] Mark Oppenheimer, “A Mischievous Thorn in the Side of Conservative Christianity,” New York Times, July 11, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-conservative-christianity.html.

[8] “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets.

[9] “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple.

[10] Or medication-induced abortion, also known as chemical abortion, medical abortion, and pill abortion (by the “abortion pill”). For TST’s explanation of medication abortion, see “Medication Abortion,” TST Health (2023), accessed January 10, 2024, https://www.tsthealth.org/resources#medicationabortion.

[11] See “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” TST Health, accessed January 10, 2024, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63b68c961da991700b94e8b7/t/63eac53263f3c063df3e1675/1676330291874/TST+Health+-+Satanic+Abortion+Ritual+Flyer-2.pdf.

[12] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), Majority Opinion Justice Samuel Alito, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf.

[13] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113.

[14] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html.

[15] See “How Is the Satanic Abortion Ritual Legally Protected?” and other (linked) statements in “The Satanic Temple: Religious Reproductive Rights,” The Satanic Temple (c.2023), accessed January 11, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns.

[16] If they utilize religious tax exemptions, they can make even more money. They wouldn’t have to accept payment for abortion services, per se, but merely accept (tax-exempt) donations to run the clinic. As of January 2024, TST is hosting a fundraiser for the clinic. See “Supreme Courtship: A Fundraiser in Support of Samual Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/supreme-courtship.

[17] The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a clear example of this “secular state” interpretation of religious freedom, nicknamed here as “separation of church and state.”

[18] The “Lemon Test” (Lemon v Kurtzman, 1973) notwithstanding; Supreme Court history has favored a broad sense of “freedom of religion” where people are not forced by the state to participate in religious activity but, if they choose, can freely and publicly exercise their religion as an individual and communal expression of their 1st Amendment rights. For example, see Cantwell v Connecticut (1940); WV Board of Education v Barnett (1943); Emerson v Board of Education (1947); Torcaso v Watkins (1961); Sherbert v Verner (1963); Lynch v Donnelly (1984); Oregon v Smith (1990); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014); and Kennedy v Bremerton (2022).

[19] Satanic groups that affirm magic include LaVeyan Satanism (Church of Satan), Temple of Set, Luciferians, the Order of Nine Angels, and others. Unofficially, even the Satanic Temple allows magical practice among its members. If a TST member practiced magic, that’s not heresy or heterodoxy for them, it’s just not formally affirmed by TST. See, e.g., “Can I Join TST If I Have Supernatural Beliefs?,” FAQ, The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq.

[20] See “Can I Join TST If I Have Supernatural Beliefs?” Archaeological remains confirm that human sacrifice occurred in Mesoamerica, mostly victimizing military-age males but with about five percent of them being children. Lizzy Wade, ““Feeding the Gods: Hundreds of skulls Reveal Massive Scale of Human Sacrifice in Aztec Capital,” Science, June 21, 2018, https://www.science.org/content/article/feeding-gods-hundreds-skulls-reveal-massive-scale-human-sacrifice-aztec-capital.

Similar archaeological findings confirm that child sacrifice occurred and was well known in the ancient world. Robin Ngo, “Did the Carthaginians Really Practice Infant Sacrifice,” Biblical Archaeological Society, July 27, 2020, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/did-the-carthaginians-really-practice-infant-sacrifice/.

These findings reinforce biblical reports that disdainfully describe this practice as an abomination (see, e.g., Lev. 20:2–5; Isa. 30:33; Jer. 19:12). It even becomes an indictment against Israel when the people and their kings adopt neighboring pagan religions, including ritual child sacrifice (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 28:1–4; Jer. 32:35). In some parts of the world child sacrifice is still practiced in recent times. Tonny Onyulo, “In This Nation, Children’s Body Parts Are Sacrificed for Witchcraft,” USA Today, May 1, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/01/uganda-human-children-sacrifice/100741148/.

While child sacrifice is reasonably well proven, it is more difficult to establish verified ties between Satanism and child sacrifice. The “Satanic Panic” of the late 1970’s and 1980’s muddied the waters here, undoubtedly sensationalizing and likely exaggerating the threat of “Satanic Ritual Abuse.” One Justice Department report on Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) explains the conundrum, “Although evidence increasingly shows SRA exists, clinicians working with individual patients cannot be sure if they are dealing with fact or fantasy.“ C. A. Ross, “Satanic Ritual Abuse: Principles of Treatment,” U.S. Department of Justice (1995), https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/satanic-ritual-abuse-principles-treatment.

Nevertheless, from a Christian perspective, all the false gods who feed on child sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Molech, Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, etc.) are derivations more or less of Satan — whether being different “infernal names” for Satan and his hoards, or being false gods embodying the adversarial, false, and ungodly aims of Satan’s minions (see, Anton Levay, Satanic Bible [San Francisco: William Morrow paperbacks], 43–45). Even when some self-identified Satanists like the Order of Nine Angels allegedly endorse “human sacrifice,” since they are a dark society, cloaked in mystery, it’s difficult to tell what is mere talk, gossip, and legend, versus what is real. Moreover, the TST could even formally disavow all child sacrifice, using “ritual” language entirely as a judicial ruse, yet if they’re facilitating child-killing under the banner of Satanism, they’re still doing Satan’s bidding — serving a literal Satan whom they don’t believe in.

[21] “The Satanic Temple: Religious Reproductive Rights,” at: https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns?gclid=Cj0KCQiAn-2tBhDVARIsAGmStVl2_YhcBMVfAzcuEXhrZ2vtuY5_RmtL5XsliAjklaSeXx-pCJ2TG_MaAr5vEALw_wcB

[22] Tenets V and I, respectively, in “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets.

[23] Margaret M. Gary and Donna J. Harrison, “Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy 40, 2 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1G481, full paper is accessible via American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, https://www.aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MifeSAEharrison-pdf-copy.pdf; see also American College of Pediatricians, “Chemical Abortions: With and Without Medical Supervision,” Issues in Law & Medicine 38, 1 (2023): 77–106, https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/articles/chemical-abortions-with-and-without-medical-supervision/.

[24] Gary and Harrison explain, “Ectopic pregnancy is an absolute contraindication to the use of mifepristone.” Gary and Harrison, “Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient”; see also “Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy through 10 Weeks Gestation,” U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), March 3, 2023, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation; cf. Julia Oltman et al., “Have We Overlooked the Role of Mifepristone for the Medical Management of Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy?, Human Reproduction 38, Issue 8, (2023): 1445–1448, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead116.

[25] Ingrid Skop, “The Evolution of ‘Self-Managed’ Abortion: Does the Safety of Women Seeking Abortion Even Matter Anymore?,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, March 1, 2022, https://lozierinstitute.org/the-evolution-of-self-managed-abortion/.

[26] “Practice Bulletin 181: Prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 130, no. 2 (2017), 481–483, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002232.

[27] Skop, “The Evolution of Self-Managed Abortion.”

[28] Skop, “The Evolution of Self-Managed Abortion.”

[29] American College of Pediatricians, “Chemical Abortions: With and Without Medical Supervision.”

[30] Christina A. Cirucci, Kathi A. Aultman, Donna J. Harrison, “Mifepristone Adverse Events Identified by Planned Parenthood in 2009 and 2010 Compared to Those in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and Those Obtained Through the Freedom of Information Act,” Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology 8 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1177/23333928211068919.

[31] “The Abortion Pill,” Planned Parenthood, accessed January 8, 2024, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill.

[32] “The Abortion Pill,” Planned Parenthood.

[33] Maarit Niinimäki et al., “Immediate Complications after Medical Compared with Surgical Termination of Pregnancy,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 114, no. 4 (2009): 795–804, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b5ccf9; Ushma D. Upadhyay et al., “Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications after Abortion,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 125, no. 1 (2015): 175–183, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000603. For a summary of the increased risks involved in medication abortion over surgical abortion, see “Fact Sheet: Risks and Complications of Medical Abortion,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, July 19, 2022 (updated August 23, 2023), https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-risks-and-complications-of-chemical-abortion/.

[34] Coercion, like consent, can be difficult to prove, especially if the victim is still protecting their abuser, or still under threat from them. Nevertheless, Reardon, et al., summarize their findings saying: “33% identified [the abortion] as wanted, 43% as accepted but inconsistent with their values and preferences, and 24% as unwanted or coerced.” See, David C. Reardon, Katherine A. Rafferty, Tessa Longbons, “The Effects of Abortion Decision Rightness and Decision Type on Women’s Satisfaction and Mental Health,” Cureus 15, no. 5 (2023), abstract, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38882. David C. Reardon, et al., “Hidden Epidemic: Nearly 70% of Abortions are Coerced, Unwanted, Or Inconsistent with Women’s Preferences,” Lozier Institute (15 May 2023), https://lozierinstitute.org/hidden-epidemic-nearly-70-of-abortions-are-coerced-unwanted-or-inconsistent-with-womens-preferences/

[35] Based on trends in “Abortion Statistics: United States and Trends,” National Right to Life, January 2023, https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/23StatsFS.pdf.

[36] Abortion is literally fatal child abuse. Sex-selective, race-based, and ability-based abortion are all legal in the U.S.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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)

Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella, Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/48mii4y

 

/by

Why Did God Allow Stoning?

When it comes to Bible reading, some passages are more challenging than others. Such is the case with the stoning passages (see Leviticus 20:27; 24:16; Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 13:6-11; 21:18-21). These aren’t our go-to passages for morning devotionals. Personally, I can understand capital punishment, but stoning as a means to achieving it just seems so barbaric, cruel, and harsh, especially when the commandment is issued to parents to indict rebellious sons, as seen in Scripture:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So, you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

This is a hard passage to stomach, don’t you think? I prefer death by lethal injection, or death by a laced bong hit, but stoning? What a mess. As believers, how are we to understand these verses? Below are five thoughts to consider as you seek to come to terms with this passage.

1. It’s an Ancient Context.

First, we need to understand this text, like all texts, in context. We can’t overlay our twenty-first century cultural understanding on this ancient milieu. Nothing will lead to more head-scratching confusion and frustration than that. Ours is a culture where a minor swat on our child’s gluteus maximus causes an uproar. No wonder stoning is extra hard for us to digest.

2. It’s a Last Resort.

Second, stoning was the last resort. The son described in these verses exhibits an unbending and rebellious spirit. He’s steeped in sin, freely giving himself to drunkenness and gluttony, and refuses to respond to any parental discipline, altogether shunning the fifth commandment. These verses describe a seemingly hopeless case, one set in his own ways as he strong-arms God, his parents, and the principles of his surrounding theocratic nation. He’s a morally sick son whose sin will spread and undo the moral fabric of the whole community nation, if left unchecked. Once the parents realize their son’s recalcitrance, they seek outside intervention as a final resort.[i]

3. Morality Matters At a Community-Level.

Third, the ultimate purpose of stoning was to purge evil from the community and to create a healthy fear of living an unchecked moral life. The health of the nation depended on the entire community walking in alignment with God. That’s not to say people didn’t sin. They did. A lot. And there was an entire sacrificial system in place so people could once again obtain a clear conscience before the Lord. The son described in these verses wasn’t looking for a clear conscience—his conscience was seared.

4. It’s Rare.

This wasn’t a common custom. Interestingly enough, we have very few instances of stoning that take place in the biblical records and I’m not aware of any extra biblical evidence that this punishment was commonly carried out. Perhaps the threat was enough to deter people from such rebellious behavior.

5. Jesus Answers This Law With Grace.

Finally, Jesus models the heart of God regarding stoning.[ii] In John 8:7 Jesus said to those who accused the adulterous women, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The law teaches us that we are all lawbreakers. Everyone under God’s law deserves capital punishment, but Jesus experienced capital punishment on our behalf even though He was the only one to ever fulfill the law. Essentially, He was stoned for us in an act of unconditional love as He experienced death on our behalf.

REFERENCES

[i] Editor’s Note: It should also be noted that there’s a cultural corrective built into this scenario to prevent abusing capital punishment. Children were seen as a blessing, a legacy and a source of pride and joy for parents. Plus, even today, it’s only natural for parents to be biased in favor of their own children. So, if anyone was going to advocate to protect and defend one’s children from capital punishment, it’s the parents. In that way, there was a cultural corrective built-into that relation, to keep parents bearing false witness against their child and from doling out a capital punishment lightly. Second, parents would also be the experts on their own children, knowing them better than anyone else. So, if this child is a menace to society, the parents are in a position to recognize that threat before anyone else does. Third, parents already have relational authority over their own children. That means they can make judgments over their children; that’s part of their job as parents. Now they don’t have the natural right to directly kill their kids, but they do have a judicial role over their children, so that court rulings over their children are treated here as an extension or continuation of parental authority over the child. Fourth, even still, this passage isn’t saying that parents have a right to kill their children. Rather, the parents are coming forward as the chief witnesses against their rebellious child. While they created that child, and they have a normal responsibility to raise and care for them, they cannot kill that child as a general right of parenthood. That’s why they have to present their child before a larger judging body, a court of the elders, Sanhedrin, priests, etc., to make that higher-court decision. The parents, in that case, are not the “Judges” issuing a death sentence, they are more like the arresting officers and lead witnesses against their prodigal child. Sixth, that era also had no standing police force and no prison system, and the judicial/court system was usually a small counsel of community leaders (elders, priests, etc.). All that means the punishments had to fit the crime, without requiring an elaborate police force, prison system, or a complicated court system. Stoning was a low-cost, effective, means of containing serious threats and reducing crime. Plus, it’s administered by the whole community, so the whole community takes responsibility for the court rulings. This means no single person can be both judge and executioner. One or two people could be bribed or tricked into a guilty-verdict, but it’s a lot harder to do that to the whole community.

[ii] I realize our earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11. Regardless, these verses depict a consistent vision of the life and actions of Jesus Christ.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

A Father’s Embrace (DVD), (Mp3), (Mp4 Download), and (PowerPoint download) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England), where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books, including The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One Other Questions About God and the Bible, and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense, to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather, and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by

A Student is Not Greater Than His Teacher

, ,

I still have nightmares about being in college. It usually has something to do with a math final and being unable to graduate without passing it. Why does it always have to be math? I wake up vowing I will never go back to college. One thing that was sure to make or break my semester in university was something some students might not consider before enrolling. It wasn’t the subject. It wasn’t even the course requirements listed on the syllabus. It was something much more important: the teacher.

The teacher is a major contributor to whether you succeed or fail a class. Several of my teachers started the first day’s introductions by giving the most un-motivational speech that was sure to make more students drop the class before the ink on the syllabus was dry. It went something like this: “No one will ever get an A in this class so don’t expect one.” Who wants a teacher like that? Shouldn’t teachers want their students to excel in their class? Shouldn’t teachers encourage students to become as knowledgeable in the subject matter as them? If this is the attitude of your teacher, you won’t get a good education.

A Good Education Begins With a Good Teacher

As an educator, I am burdened with the responsibility to teach my students well. I often reminded my 5th graders that my job was to teach them. Their job was to let me know when they didn’t understand. As a teacher, I knew something my students never questioned or considered. My knowledge of the material had to be at mastery level so I could take them to the next level. And if I didn’t? They would never succeed.

When we think of education, we often don’t think of Christian education. Education is the transfer of knowledge systematically. Sure, that happens in the public education system all the time. It happens on college campuses every semester. But it should happen in the church. The problem is, it doesn’t. Why? Because the teachers don’t know the material as they should.

Let me explain.

George Barna’s American Worldview Inventory from 2022-2023 shows that only 36% of senior pastors in the United States have a biblical worldview. If that shocks you, it only gets worse when you look into the stats of children and youth pastors. A staggering 17% of them have a biblical worldview. It’s no wonder that the worldview of those in the church is only 6%, while 64% of Americans claim to be Christian. Why the disparity in the stats? It all comes down to the teacher.

A Student Is Not Greater Than His Teacher

 Jesus told His disciples that a student is not greater than his teacher. In Luke 6:40, Jesus said, “The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.”[1] Every teacher should strive to teach their students all they know; to take them to a depth of learning that makes the student like his teacher, with the result of the student becoming a teacher himself. Because, according to Jesus, that is as far as a teacher can take his student – to the depths of learning they’ve experienced and nothing more.

This means one of two things can happen:

  1. A student can eventually graduate their teacher’s program and become equipped to teach.

Or

2. A teacher can stunt the student’s growth because they’re not an equipped teacher.

Which one should be the goal of the teacher? For the student to outgrow you, meaning the student no longer needs the teacher but becomes the teacher himself. How does that happen? Once again, we need to focus on the qualifications of a teacher in Christian education.

Choose Your Teachers Wiseley

In the first century, disciples chose their teachers (rabbis). But in Jesus’ case, He often reminded His disciples that He chose them. Nevertheless, Jesus made an example of teachers and warned His followers that they ought to be careful whom they chose as their teachers.

Let’s look at some examples where Jesus encountered or commented on teachers.

Nicodemus Skipped the Basics

Nicodemus was a teacher of the Law. He was a Pharisee and part of the Sanhedrin. With all of these titles, it appeared he was qualified. In John 3, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night to ask Him some questions. But the conversation took a turn that made Nicodemus scratch his head in confusion. Jesus shifted the conversation to a phrase not well known in the first century. He mentioned that all who would see the kingdom of God would be born again. This concept was lost on Nicodemus. He thought Jesus was talking about physical matters when Jesus was clearly speaking of spiritual matters. What Jesus said next exposed the kind of teacher Nicodemus was. Jesus asked a rhetorical question, “You are Israel’s teacher and you don’t understand these things? (10) …  I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (12)

Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law, did not understand the basics. And Jesus called him out. Teachers in Christian Education must have mastered the basics. If they haven’t, they will never effectively teach the truths of Christianity.

Going back to Barna’s American Worldview Inventory, the questions that determine whether or not an educator has a biblical worldview comes down to the fundamentals of the faith. Education, whether it’s Christian or secular, must lay the foundation in the fundamentals. The problem is that Christians are skipping the basics and that’s usually because the teachers themselves don’t even know them.

Hypocritical Pharisees

If there is one group of teachers in the Bible Jesus consistently conflicted with, it’s the Pharisees. But there is one passage that stands out above all passages when Jesus explained what the students of the Pharisees should take note of and emulate. Remember, the hope a student has is not that he will become greater than his teacher but that he will become like him. Jesus often called them hypocrites, whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones, and blind guides. Jesus then turned to their followers and said, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’s seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matthew 23:2-3).

A Christian educator’s life should be consistent with what he preaches. “Do as I say, not as I do” is not a teaching strategy. In fact, more kids these days are turning to other influences rather than their parents because they are witnessing inconsistencies in what is communicated versus what is lived. Jesus did not allow the Pharisees to get away with hypocrisy. The church shouldn’t either.

A Teacher Worth Following

Students don’t often think about what to look for in a good teacher. But as a teacher, I can give you some tips on what to look for when it comes to choosing who you follow and who you put in front of your kids when it comes to Christian education. Here are three things to look for in a teacher worth following:

  1. Knowledge.
  2. Character.
  3. Service.

As George Barna says, you can’t give what you don’t have. I say it this way, you can’t teach what you don’t know. A teacher must know more than the student and be capable of taking the student on a journey to deeper knowledge that leads to spiritual growth. That happens systematically and it begins with the basics. So, a Christian teacher has to know at least two things: first, he must know the Bible. Second, he must know how to transfer that knowledge systematically.

A teacher must have good character and live what he preaches. That means a Christian educator must have a biblical worldview where what he believes, what he speaks, and what he lives are all aligned to the Bible. Without this, forget number one because he doesn’t have real knowledge and therefore he cannot live it.

Finally, a good teacher serves his students. In the first century, it was the lowly servant who washed the feet of his master. The disciple not only learned from his teacher, but he served him too. Not with Jesus. Jesus showed His disciples that He was there to serve because the servant is the greatest. It was a model of discipleship not witnessed during this time in history and is still countercultural today. Nevertheless, it is the model of a teacher and the model a disciple is to emulate as he becomes like his teacher.

In conclusion, a good education begins and ends with a solid teacher. A teacher can only take their students to the depths of knowledge in which they have chosen to venture. James warns those in the church that “not many should become teachers because they will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1). The warning is to those in Christian education, whether it be Sunday school, Bible study, or the classroom. An effective teacher will both teach with their words and their actions. Since a student is to become like his teacher, we ought to proceed with caution when choosing who we sit in front of or who we put in front of our kids. The spiritual growth of our families and the church depends on it.

 

References:

[1] Editor’s Note: Jesus was probably talking about Rabbis here. Rabbis were known for teaching students to read, write, study the Bible, know the law, theology, etc. But Rabbis were also personal mentors to their students, imparting not just religious knowledge but a whole lifestyle including etiquette, customs, eating habits, traditions, relationships, worldview, and more.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

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

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

Woman to Woman: Preparing Yourself to Mentor (Book) by Edna Ellison & Tricia Scribner

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Shanda Fulbright is a credentialed teacher and has a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, a certificate from the CrossExamined Instructor’s Academy as well as several certificates from Online Christian Courses. She hosts Her Faith Inspires podcast where she takes cultural issues and aligns them to biblical truth. You can read her blogs and find out more about her at shandafulbright.com.

 

/by

Pronoun Mania

If you haven’t had a chance to freshen up on the latest gender pronoun trend, be sure to do so by visiting a Starbucks near you. There you’ll be warmly greeted by your barista, who might be your standard he or she but could be he/they, she/they, or they/them. On another visit you might encounter ze/hir or ze/zer, or perhaps even xe/xem or ze/zim or sie/her; and, oh yeah, I almost forgot about pir too. It’s sort of like going to McDonald’s as a kid and ordering a happy meal, eagerly waiting to discover what new treat/toy they/them or ze/zer has put inside your box. If you’re confused, don’t worry—that makes two of us. Or does it? You can always purchase your own personal gender pronoun pocket guide in the event you fail to remember whether he is a she or she is a he or he and she are they/them. But let the buyer beware. By the time you finish reading your copy, you’ll want to look for a fresh edition straight off the press to address the growing list.

On one of my latest visits to Starbucks with my wife, Heather, I was met by a lady, or rather they/them, who after taking my order said, “It’ll be right up, sir.” I’m not sure why she assumed I was a man. What if I felt like a pir? But I took no offense. However, out of genuine curiosity, I struck up a friendly conversation with they/them and said, “I noticed you called me ‘sir.’ And typically, we use sir or ma’am for male and female adults, but what does they/them use for a title?” They/them said, “For the nonbinary person, it’s Mx, M.—or some people might prefer Misc.”

I wish I could say that was helpful, but it wasn’t. If anything, I found myself even more confused by the complete hack job of the English language taking place in our culture right now. On top of this, we’re strongly warned by some to not mis-gender people, as this may cause harm. Never mind the fact that they/them assumed I was male by calling me sir instead of pir. All that to say I find it ironic that even those who champion this pronoun discussion the most are guilty of breaking their own rules by assuming the obvious in terms of others when referring to people like me as sir.

If all this pronoun distinction is not enough to keep up with, we’re told that one’s gender pronoun doesn’t necessarily reveal one’s sexual preference. Just as gender is fluid, apparently one’s sexuality is, too. As I spoke with my barista that day, they/them schooled me on this topic, informing me as well that they/them (i.e., my barista) is pansexual, which basically means that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Although my barista is pansexual, there are other options as well. For example, there are others who might be ze/zer or ze/zim, and regarding sexual preferences they/them may be allosexual; autoromantic; autosexual; androsexual; curiosexual; and of course, asexual. If someone or someze is asexual, it’s important to know how to orient oneself on the asexual spectrum. That’s because you could be sex-averse, sex-favorable, cupiosexual, graysexual, or even libidoist asexual, to name a few options. But fear not, if the above list is too narrow-minded, the LGBTQIA2 has left a + sign on the end just for you.

I’d like to buy a vowel, please.

As Heather and I left Starbucks that day, we both felt overwhelmed by how much our country has changed. I guess we both felt a bit like Dorothy, who observed to Toto, “We’re not in Kansas anymore.” It kind of feels like we are living in a foreign land these days. And I wish I could say that this pronoun-obsessed culture is our only problem.

It’s not.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England), where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books, including The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One Other Questions About God and the Bible, and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense, to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather, and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by