Culture and Politics Archives

The Widening of God’s Mercy – Book Review

4. Is the NT True?, Culture and Politics, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

In the mid-1990’s a Theology professor at Duke Divinity School, named Richard Hayes, wrote a book called The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. It made waves in the Evangelical world because it was the first time a relatively liberal theological scholar took a definitive stance on the biblical sexual ethic. For decades conservative Christian scholars and pastors have cited Hays’s work in this book as evidence that scripture speaks clearly on issues concerning human sexuality and morality.

There were other, more conservative, names that had come to the same conclusions as Hays prior to and after his book was published. However, the very fact that someone of his pedigree, hailing from such a scholarly institution as Duke University, so unequivocally stood on the orthodox understanding of scriptures concerning sexuality was seen as a sort of ace in the hole against the arguments of affirmation theology.

In his 1996 book Hays said this:

“Thus, in view of the considerable uncertainty surrounding the scientific and experiential evidence, in view of our culture’s present swirling confusion about gender roles, in view of our propensity for self-deception, I think it prudent and necessary to let the univocal testimony of Scripture and the Christian tradition order the life of the church on this painfully controversial matter. We must affirm that the New Testament tells us the truth about ourselves as sinners and as God’s sexual creatures: marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose.” (The Moral Vision, pgs. 399-400)

But Wait, There’s More

Recently, however, Richard and his son Christopher, a professor at Fuller Seminary, published a book called The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the biblical story. In it, Richard and Christopher lay out an argument for repudiating Richard’s previous work and leaning into affirmation theology. This seismic shift was heralded as a possible inflection point in the Evangelical Church’s defense of the biblical sexual ethic.

The book’s premise relies on understanding that God changes his mind throughout the history of scripture:

“Although these stories (OT stories, particularly Moses) are told as if God is ‘learning on the job,’ the portrait they create is consistent with a recurring image of God throughout the Bible. Even where judgment seems to narrow the scope of blessing, there are signs of the wideness of God’s mercy. God’s plan for the world is broader than some think.” (pg. 48)

God’s changing of mind and widening of his circle of inclusion is used throughout the book to support the claim that the next step in this widening work is through the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people and their lifestyles:

“Those who do not conform to traditional expectations for sexual orientation should be the next to be explicitly included, as an extension of this ancient and traditional process.” (pg. 4)

In this book review, I will look at what it seems Richard and Cristopher intended to accomplish, the arguments in the book, and, as always, what the book does well and what it does poorly.

Purpose of the Book

Some might believe that the purpose of this book is to change conservative minds, but this is not the case. Richard and his son seek not to change staunch conservatives but to give hope to those in the middle or to the left on the issue of sexual identity and Christianity. The book is also meant to serve as a salve on the wounds of those who have felt alienated by the church’s traditional position on human sexuality. Thus, this is not an academic book, unlike Richard’s first work in 1996, but is, instead, a book focused on empathy, shifting the narrative in the conversation, and extending an olive branch to people either firmly in the affirmation camp or those that are on the fence.

At the outset, Richard and Christopher do not hide the ball as far as that is concerned:

“The reader will find few footnotes” (pg. 4).

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“… after I suggested we write this book, he asked me, “who is the intended audience?” And I said, “Maddie.” That’s my daughter, whom we have raised to appreciate the strength that comes from diversity and who can see very clearly that the future will have no patience with debates over human rights for those whose sexual orientation does not conform to ‘traditional’ standards” (pg. 16).

Clearly, this book is not intended to convince me. And it did not, as that was not its aim.

What this book does well

Care for the LGBTQ+ Community to Come to Jesus

The book strikes a tone of love and care for people in the LGBTQ+ community. It shows a care for their eternal souls and is seemingly meant to serve as an apologetic for them to come to faith in Jesus Christ even if they have been hurt by the theology and/or actions of the Church in the past.

“…but the book is also for those who are already convinced that LGBTQ people are just as good as straight people but who are unsure about God and Christianity… To them -perhaps to you- we say: You’re not crazy to think you and yours are created equal and loved equally by God” (pg. 16).

I appreciate the heart of two individuals who desire to see all come to faith in Jesus Christ and seek to remove any unnecessary obstacles from their path. The question becomes though, what is necessary and unnecessary for the gospel? I have often said that homosexuality and LGBTQ lifestyles are the one sin the church has often told people they need to solve prior to coming to the cross of Christ. This is wrong and harmful. In that much, I agree, but going the extra step to affirm certain lifestyles because otherwise it would cost too much for people to follow Jesus, that is a bridge too far.

Jesus himself said we need to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33), so it is not readily apparent that the obstacles of a biblical sexual ethic should be glossed over. That being said, I believe Christopher and Richard’s heart for people not of the faith is on full display throughout the book. They have clearly been impacted by the stories of pain told to them by people in those communities and I resonate with that.

“A gay acquaintance tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade-schooler, and his Sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it and the words, ‘God don’t make no junk.’ Most of the sheets probably wound up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally, when we needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation; nor do they forget when it doesn’t” (pg. 36).

“My own experience of participating in a church where gay and lesbian members were a vital part of the congregation’s life and ministry has caused me to stop and reconsider what I wrote before” (pg. 10).

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, “Who are we that we can block God” (pg. 213-14).

These personal experiences (Christopher shares, at length, multiple experiences of students at Fuller early in the book) seem to be the impetus for such a change of mind. Experience is of seminal importance throughout the book, and reading scripture through the lens of experience seems to be the preferred method. The desire is admirable, the empathy understandable, but the theology and methodology is flawed.

Unity of the Church

Another thing that seems to bother both Christopher and Richard is the division over this issue. In multiple spaces throughout the book, both authors indicate a desire to move beyond these debates and to the more important matters of the law of Christ. They see the fracturing within the church, rightly, as a bad thing. The divisiveness over such issues seems paltry and unnecessary to them.

Ultimately, it seems one of the goals of their book is to encourage people to let go of division and arguments so we can move forward much like the early church did with food sacrificed to idols.

“The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring” (pg. 2).

They find exegetical arguments counterproductive to the unity of the church on these issues and thus, they do not make many, if any, throughout the book:

“We believe that this debate should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disapprove of same-sex relations. (The regularly cited texts are Gen 19:1-9, Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Rom 1:18-32). In this book we have not revisited them. It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today. But drawing conclusions based only on these passages would be like basing a biblical theology of slavery on Exod. 21:2 (which assumes one can buy a slave) and 1 Pet 2:18 (which tells slaves to be subject to their masters), or a theology of immigration on Ezek 44:9’s exclusion of foreigners from the sanctuary” (pg. 206-207).

“As a practical matter, it is difficult to see how strong differences over same-sex marriages could be maintained within an individual congregation, or even in some cases within an individual denomination. But it is not impossible to imagine that different Christian congregations might hold different norms and practices on this question while still acknowledging one another as members of the one body of Christ – just as Catholic and Protestant churches already do with respect to their different standards on clerical celibacy and women’s ordination” (pg. 216).

While there are certainly issues with these assertions, and certainly I do not agree that exegetical arguments concerning what is and is not a sin are pedantic in any way, I can appreciate the heart for unity behind the words. But unity in sin should not be the goal. This leads us to what this book does poorly.

What this Book does poorly

The entire argument is incredibly flawed

The most glaring issue with this book is that the argument is blatantly flawed. In fact, in arguing for the widening of God’s mercy to be extended to a certain group both Hays men fail in properly defining the word mercy and why mercy is needed in the first place. Not only that, but both men indicate that the passages of scripture outlawing such sexual activity do, in fact, say and mean what Richard claimed they did in 1996.

At one point Richard Hays quotes long passages from his previous work and then concludes said section with this statement:

“As a judgment about what these very few biblical texts say, that statement still seems to me to be correct” (pg. 8).

So, it is not that the interpretation of said scriptures are incorrect, but that God has simply changed his mind and widened his mercy beyond these passages. In other words, because of God’s ever-expanding mercy these passages no longer carry moral weight for how we view sexuality.

How do we know this to be true? Well, basically, because it seems to be true according to Richard and Christopher Hays and that if it isn’t true then our position is “harming” people:

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“Any religious tradition that makes its peace with harming people is to be feared” (pg. 5).

These statements of seeming theological fact are devoid of scripture and devoid of clarification. For instance, who is to say that fighting the battle against sexual sin is a battle that God doesn’t call us to fight either personally or societally?

If the passages themselves retain their meaning (as Richard seems to believe) then it would be paramount to explain how 1 Corinthians 6:18 or 2 Timothy 2:22 mesh with this perspective as well as Ephesians 5:1-13. It certainly seems, from these and other scriptures, that the declaration that Christians ought not fight battles against sexual immorality of this kind is not based in proper hermeneutics.

Adding to that is the question of harm. What does it mean for a religious tradition to “harm people?” How has conservatism done so? Could it not also be the case that affirmation into sin could harm people even if said affirmation feels good and freeing to them in the moment? These are questions that Richard and Christopher never ask.

As for proper exegesis of specific texts, it seems that both Hays see these academic exercises as unnecessary. There is a “deeper logic” of the biblical story in their minds, but this logic is based on nothing other than experience and emotion as far as I can tell and makes leaps based on how one perceives certain threads of scripture and God’s changing of mind through the Old and New Testaments.

“Exegetical debates can become red herrings and distract us from the character of God” (pg. 12).

This is a particularly troubling quote as it assumes that one can adequately understand the character of God without proper exegesis. How do we KNOW God’s character at all without debating the proper exegesis of certain passages? It would seem we can import our idea of what God SHOULD be like, but we may never arrive at who he truly is without it.

For an answer to how God moves in history according to the Hays men a quote from the middle of the book will help the reader:

“Paradoxically, such conservatism proceeds as if God were dead, or were at least done with the world. If God were done with us, then we could simply add up the sum of the texts and arrive at the right answer, once and for all. (This, I’m afraid, is not too far from what Moral Vision did in regard to homosexuality, although it seems to me that my father was always uneasy about the answers” (pg. 92).

Many assumptions are made in this text. One, that conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. To understand what they mean by this, one has to grasp their argument that God changes and widens his scope of acceptance throughout history.

“The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny” (pg. 86).

I may agree this seems to be a problem if one embraces [classical theism], but it is not a problem if one embraces middle knowledge or even open theism.[1] Whether the Hays duo are Open Theists I do not know (though much of their argumentation hints that this may be the case). I believe a robust understanding of God’s middle knowledge makes sense of the passages alluding to God’s changing of mind. Also, even if one is a theological determinist there are certain exegetical tools at one’s disposal to explain how an unchanging God might seem to “change his mind.”

Of course, it is ridiculous to say conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Conservatism proceeds as if God were actively conforming us and others to his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12).

There are many literary devices one might use to explain God’s interaction with humanity over time. For instance, when Jonah finally agrees to preach to Ninevah and the people repent God relents of his promised destruction. The question: did God really change his mind; it seems as if he did.

But the lesson of Jonah is that God is perfectly consistent. He will relent from deserving punishment if repentance occurs regardless of who the people are and how we feel about them (Jonah 4:2). God WOULD have destroyed Ninevah had they not repented but he relented because they repented. Since God knows all things then he knew they would repent but for them to repent they must hear of God’s impending judgement, thus, God sends Jonah. Does this point to fickleness on God’s part or a change of heart or character? No, exactly the opposite. God knows how we will respond based on his foreknowledge of our decisions and he knows how he would have responded if we had done otherwise.

But no such robust discussion on God’s character occurs in this book. The underlying assumption of the book is that human sexuality is as innate as race and thus “sexual minorities” are just as relevant to the expanding of God’s inclusion as the inclusion of Samaritans and gentiles:

[Block quote] “A reader working through the whole book of Isaiah has heard earlier that ‘[The LORD] will assemble the outcasts of Israel’ (11:12). Now, God is going to gather more – not just the outcasts of Israel, but other nations as well. God is going to enlarge the tent. Those who were once forcibly excluded from it are now meant to be ushered in” (pg.105).

“It bears repeating: Scripture reflects that God’s grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change his mind and his approaches to the world to broaden it further. So, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same” (pg. 108).

“A constant theme of these stories is that Jesus does not reject Israel’s scriptures; instead, like the prophets before him, he insists on reinterpreting them in light of the conviction that love and mercy lie at the root of God’s purposes . . . Here we should pause to reflect: Should this contrast of perspectives inform the church’s present conflicts over sexuality?” (pg. 151).

The theological gymnastics employed to reach these conclusions throughout the book are phenomenal. At one point they state that human sexuality has become a Romans 14 issue:

“The ‘strong’ ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to ‘despise’ the ‘weak,’ narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the ‘weak’ ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to ‘pass judgment’ on the sinful laxity of the ‘strong’ who condone same-sex unions” (pg. 200).

What is their basis for this? Well, it is their reading of the “stories of scripture” through the lens of emotional harm rather than fleshly and spiritual harm.

Logical Leaps in Correlation

“The stories we’ve summarized in the foregoing chapters disclose a deeper logic, a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings – even when those prohibitions were explicitly attributed to God in earlier biblical texts” (pg. 207).

One of the most damaging aspects of the book are logical leaps made without argument. The Hays duo consistently make claims of harm without defining what it means to harm someone with theology and how affirming uncomfortable or upsetting truth could be harmful even if upsetting.

“To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.’ Full stop” (pg. 207).

But this trajectory of mercy does not include affirmation of sinful behaviors in any sense. There is no acceptance of the worship of idols, there is no acceptance of fornication, of theft, of bearing false witness or greed. In fact, where mercy is extended in scripture, by Jesus or otherwise, with it comes an expectation of life change and repentance. From the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) there is not a single example of God’s mercy widening so far as to include explicitly listed sins against God such as sexual immorality, something that Richard Hays even indicates is still considered sin if one simply reads scripture for what it says:

“It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (pg. 206).

The idea that Christians overcame slavery despite its supposed affirmation in scripture is leaned on as proof in the book as well:

“We could fill a whole book with discussion of such examples, but the general point is clear: Christians across time have found the Spirit-led freedom to set aside biblical laws and teachings they deem unjust, irrelevant, or inconsistent with the broader divine will. It is not hard to see how the prohibition of same-sex relations could fall into the same category” (pg. 212-213).

But even if that were the case, this is not a story of the broadening of mercy but of the restricting of behavior based on a better understanding of God’s ultimately revealed character in the scriptures and the Imago Dei held by each human through exegesis. Time and again the same leaps in reasoning are used to justify the newly held position.

God opening up worship to Eunuchs – embracing “sexual minorities”

God including gentiles in the promise – embracing “sexual minorities”

God embracing Samaritans in the covenantal promise of Christ – embracing “sexual minorities”

On this last example they do not go into detail on John 4 when Jesus does open up the plan of inclusion to Samaria but at the same time tells the woman at the well that the Samaritans are wrong, that she is in sin, and that future worshipers will worship in spirit and TRUTH.

[Block quote] “There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances” (pg 214).

But the issue with the above quote is that being a foreigner and eunuch is not inherently sinful and that God does not embrace “tax collectors and sinners” without changing them. Zacchaeus changes his lifestyle (Luke 19), so does the woman caught in adultery. The embrace of mercy is not without the expectation of shedding the shackles of sin even if it is a sin that we hold closely within our own constructed identity. It seems the Hays men confuse conversion with sanctification.

Unnecessary Political digs at conservatives throughout

A more minor issue with the book is the random and sudden inclusion of progressive political stances strewn throughout. Gun control, immigration and other politically conservative positions receive unnecessary blows as the arguments are made:

“These deaths, he says (Garry Wills) are an ‘offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily.’ Most people are capable of understanding the statistics about gun deaths, and the many things we could do to reduce them, but alas, they are sure that the Second Amendment means free access to all sorts of firearms. When we grit our teeth in the face of the death of children, we sacrifice them to false gods” (pg. 67).

Perhaps the above quote might be correct even if I disagree, but it is either tone-deaf, disingenuous, or both to include something about Moloch and guns without touching on abortion even once. This would be enough to make one think that perhaps this is simply an ideological work rather than a theological one. This is just one example.

There is no limiting principle

The final issue I want to highlight with this book is that even if the argument worked for same-sex relationships it does not seem that Richard and Christopher are content to stop there. They seem to employ a sort of Motte and Bailey technique of argumentation as they argue for same-sex unions specifically on occasions but then incorporate the entire gambit of sexual ideology (LGBTQ) throughout the book as well.

“Does Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council offer a model for how the church today might address controversial issues concerning inclusion of sexual minorities?… If the church today looks to the council as a pattern – and if it decides that same-sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified as ‘porneia’ – we would need to ask what analogous transformative guidance the church would offer to its members of differing sexual orientations. . . One reasonable suggestion is that same-sex relationships should aspire to the same standard of monogamous covenant fidelity that the church has long commended and prescribed for heterosexual marriage. And, at the same time, the church should be no less careful to uphold the same standard consistently for its members of heterosexual orientation” (pgs. 186-87).

To argue simply for same-sex inclusion might be one thing (though, I still believe their argument fails). But it seems they have their sights set not simply on this but on the entire progressive sexuality gambit. The constant use of terms like sexual minorities and LGBTQ leaves no guard rails to sexual behavior. Would pedophilia be off limits? Bestiality? Incest? One is left to wonder. Exactly how far does God’s mercy widen in this arena?

“As for the rest of us, when it comes to respecting other people, it’s not plausible to hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and still present ourselves as their friend, or their ‘brother (or sister) in Christ.’ Most people are not interested in that kind of grudging acceptance” (pg. 11, emphasis mine).

Would Richard and Christopher Hays really say it is never plausible to do this? If that is the case, then I suppose we must be open to polyamory, pedophilia and more? After all, who are we to “hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and present ourselves as their friend?” There is no limiting principle offered throughout the book. Only, the continuous and seemingly never-ending widening of God’s mercy in acceptance of previously outlined sin so long as the sin can be seen as an identity marker for a minority group.

“We believe that welcoming people of different sexualities is an act of faithfulness to God’s merciful purposes. Let’s not make God’s offer of grace a lie” (pg. 220-21, emphasis mine).

Conservative Christians would agree with the above statement, but Hays and Hays intimate that welcoming equals affirming. Of course, God’s grace is not a lie. Of course, it extends to all people regardless of their sexual past or their proclivities, but it does not follow then that these sexual sins are not sins and it does not follow that they are worthy of full acceptance and affirmation. Finally, what exactly is meant by “different sexualities”? This is not simply a call for including homosexual “marriage” but opens the door to a wide variety of sexual aberrations. Where does it end?

Conclusion

As the authors say:

“This book is therefore not just an argument about the meaning of the Bible in the past, but an invitation to readers to make new meaning in the present by listening to the Spirit and joining God now in saying, ‘I will gather others to them/besides those already gathered’ (Isa 56:8)” (pg. 221).

Clearly, this book is not about what the Bible means but simply what Christopher and Richard Hays believe God’s character SHOULD be based on their own experiences and feelings:

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, ‘Who are we that we can block God’ (pg. 213-14).

Because they have been influenced by people whom they love, who live sexually impure lifestyles, they seem to embrace the conclusion they desire and read the scripture through that. There is a reason exegesis is ignored in this book because, to come to the conclusion they desired, they could not practice it. Instead, they practice eisegetical approaches to narratives throughout scripture.

This book fails in academics, fails in rhetoric, and fails in discipleship. It is a net negative for the church and while the arguments should be understood, the book as a whole should be rejected as it is unreasonable, unbiblical, and illogical. I give this book a 4 out of 10.

References:

[1] Editor’s Note: The author said, “theological determinism” here. But, the deeper more robust contrast here is with Classical Theism as that (traditionally understood) contrasts with both (1) Molinism and middle knowledge as well as (2) Open Theism. Classical theists can vary in how they relate to the doctrine of “theological determinism,” though they all agree that God foreordains everything in some sense, even if they can disagree about whether that is “compatible” with human free will.

Recommended Resources:

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

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

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3YTS3zM

November 20, 2024/by CrossExamined

Is AI Dangerous? (Part 2)

Culture and Politics

In Part 1, we may have virtually scared the pants off our readers with our semi-dystopian view of the future. But everything’s going to be okay, mama. You’re fine. I’m fine. Everything’s FINE!

No, really, we’re all fine.

Let me ask you something: can you give me an example of any time the future wasn’t scary? I doubt it. On this side of heaven, the future will always be uncertain. So, what we can do is cling to that which we are certain of – absolute truth. And that truth is found in a person: Jesus. Seek truth, and you’ll find Christ and His promises. Seek Christ, and you’ll find truth and clarity.

Consequently, it’s no surprise that God’s number one enemy is working relentlessly to distort our view of truth. Because that’s ALL he can do, Mama Bears – he can’t touch truth itself. So, we need to get to work to protect our kids from the enemy’s schemes. I can’t emphasize how important this is. Sports and extracurriculars are wonderful but our primary responsibility during this small window of raising children is to train them up in the way they should go (see Proverbs 22:6). We understand how overwhelming all of this can be, so we came up with a short list of foundational lessons to help you out.

5 practical ways we can prepare our kids for AI:

#1 Teach them the habit of asking “Is this true?”

I am convinced that the enemy loves to exploit our natural tendencies so that we take them too far. If you are a mom of multiple children, you already know how each child is wired so differently! Some kids are naturally trusting, so our job will be to teach them not to be gullible. On the other hand, we need to teach our doubting children to walk that fine line of shrewd skepticism without slipping into the pitfall of cynicism.

That being said, we have a real problem in this culture with people believing something is true merely because, to them, it’s believable (or by the mere fact that it’s on YouTube!). I remember having a conversation with a friend during a highly controversial and widely publicized hearing. She told me she believed the man was guilty simply because she would not be surprised if he were! What?! Mama Bears, that is not how we establish truth.

Here are some questions you can teach your kiddos to ask when trying to determine if this piece of content is true:

What is the purpose of this content?

Is it to sell me something?
Is it trying to persuade me to agree?
Is it trying to get me to click on something?

What are the sources used?

Are there multiple sources or just one?
Are the authors/creators credible?
Can you find this information on other credible sites as well?

Does the content creator acknowledge their own biases?

What worldview, religion, or political aisle is the author/creator coming from?
Do they present a balanced perspective on the issue? (legitimate pros and cons)
Who is funding this content and what is their goal?

Am I being presented with data or opinions (or a mix of both)?

Are there statistics or facts included that can be verified?
Is the author/creator making inferences on information? If so, are the inferences actually reasonable? Look for logical fallacies (or errors in their reasoning).

#2 Teach them to be slow to speak…and slow…to share

Social media is designed to trigger our emotions and get us to act – even if that’s just to engage with a post by clicking “like” or “share.”Click To Tweet

How often do we take the time to process the actual reason we want to share something (whether that’s an online or in-person conversation)?

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor (1 Corinthians 10:23-24).

We should ask ourselves: Is what I’m about to share truly edifying to the body of Christ or is it just building up my own image? Is it truly informative or is it propaganda (See point #3 below)? Will this help people prepare for the lies of the enemy or is it merely a way to humiliate my ideological enemy? Remind your kiddos not to allow internet algorithms to manipulate them into playing their game.[1]

#3 Teach them to recognize propaganda

Propaganda is a tactic used to influence the public to buy into a specific point of view or political ideology. The strategy promotes emotionalism (getting people to form their opinions based on their emotions as opposed to using critical thinking) and presents information in a biased and often misleading way. Propaganda is everywhere — politics, social media, advertisements, etc.![2] In politics, we should learn to recognize it on both sides of the aisle. When your kids come across something in the news or even a video (*ahem* TikTok) or image (we see you Instagram) that seems to be promoting a particular narrative, remind them to evaluate whether or not they are being presented with actual information. What are the details of this story or event? What actually happened? Is the story providing information or merely someone’s emotionally charged opinion? If you’re not getting actual information, you’ve probably encountered propaganda.

#4 Teach them proper expectations

Depending on the age of your kids, they are either using AI software or they will be eventually. Users need to understand the limits to this technology so that they are not deceived by it. In Part 1, I explained that not everything ChatGPT spits out is actually true information. There is good reason for this. As Rodney Brooks, Australian roboticist and AI expert, explains, “What the large language models are good at is saying what an answer should sound like, which is different from what an answer should be.” [3]

You see, a software program is spitting out an automated response based on complex algorithms. ChatGPT was designed to respond in a way that sounds like a human response. But it does not have reasoning capabilities like a real human. If you don’t keep that in mind, you could be easily fooled into thinking the response is true merely because it sounds correct. And it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about ChatGPT or another AI tool. Because no matter how well AI will be able to imitate humans, it will always be something other than human.

#5 Teach them to write

Humans have a tendency toward convenience, whether or not it’s good for them in the long run. This AI language bot stuff is relatively brand new, yet the amount of articles released expressing how high school and college students have already adapted to using AI to write their papers is staggering. One article from the Chronicle is titled, “I’m a Student. You Have No Idea How Much We’re Using ChatGPT. No professor or software could ever pick up on it.”[4]

Aside from the obvious ethical concerns, most students are not aware of how important the process of writing is to our brain development. Writing develops your ability to think critically. You have to plan, organize, develop, and reflect on your thoughts.

According to Dr. M Cecil Smith,

“Writing is a significant literacy activity in modern life that enables individuals to accomplish a variety of personal, intellectual, occupational, and recreational goals. It has been demonstrated, across a variety of investigations, that writing activities yield a number of intellectual, physiological, and emotional benefits to individuals. These benefits include improved [sic] memory function, decreased symptomatology [define], and greater feelings of happiness.”[5]

The temptation to abuse ChatGPT and other AI tech out of convenience (and intellectual laziness) is going to be strong. What we need to drill into our kiddos is the fact that if their critical thinking skills are not constantly being sharpened, they will be vulnerable to being manipulated and controlled. No one wants to be controlled. Help them to understand the importance of writing and developing their OWN thoughts, so that they can recognize when politicians, the media, or any other person is trying to manipulate them.

Final thoughts

It might be tempting to shield our kids completely from the dangers of the virtual world – and there is totally a season for that. For those mama bears with littles, the young years are a good time to lay that foundation of critical thinking skills. But the world we live in is becoming increasingly dependent on technology and, at the appropriate age, our kids will need to be trained and prepared for it.

Consider how much of what makes up our worldview is now being delivered to us digitally. Mama Bears, this kind of training is not optional. Evaluating every message that we encounter can be exhausting. But it’s like strengthening a muscle – the more you practice it, the more you strengthen your mind and it becomes natural. Keep in mind that we are not designed to be informed about every single possible event or new piece of information on the planet. Because of the internet we have access to it all, but remind your kiddos that they are in control of what they allow to take up mental space.

We are not obligated to know everything about everything, and God never intended us to. But we would be wise to hold our opinions loosely on the things we haven’t been able to thoroughly research.Click To Tweet

When considering AI and how it will impact our kids’ futures, there is so much more to consider than we can cover here. AI tech is being used to scam people. It is raising serious ethical concerns. It could impact future employment opportunities. People could even start developing relationships with AI bots. That’s super weird but not unheard of.[6] We can see that awareness is undeniably important. But don’t let it completely overwhelm you. The world has always been a scary place with many uncertainties. But Jesus told us, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

References:

[1] We recommend the film, The Social Dilemma (2020).

[2] A classic example of propaganda is the Uncle Sam poster stating “I want YOU for U.S. Army!”

[3] Rodney Brooks, quoted in Victor Tangermann, “AI Expert Says ChatGPT is Way Stupider Than People Realize,” The Byte, May 21, 2023, https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-expert-chatgpt-way-stupider?fbclid=IwAR3bU81sys9tSkoX_7q3lWA0pnMI3pD5UPwV-60rOczsYyBFgTmKVF8-zm0.

[4] Owen Kichizo Terry, “I’m a Student. You Have No Idea How Much We’re Using ChatGPT,” The Chronicle, May 12, 2023, https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-a-student-you-have-no-idea-how-much-were-using-chatgpt.

[5] M Cecil Smith, “The Benefits of Writing,” Northern Illinois University, https://www.niu.edu/language-literacy/_pdf/the-benefits-of-writing.pdf.

[6] Maria Noyen, “A woman who ‘married’ an AI chatbot is open to finding love in the real world, but says a future partner must accept her virtual husband is here to stay,” Insider, June 15, 2023, https://www.insider.com/woman-who-married-ai-chatbot-open-to-real-world-dating-2023-6.

Recommended Resources:

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3

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

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

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

Alexa Cramer is a Blog and Podcast Contributor and Video Content Creator with MamaBearApologetics.com. She’s also a homeschool mom of two. She became obsessed with apologetics after a season of doubt that nearly stole her faith. Alexa has a background in film and video and will willingly fight anyone who doesn’t agree that DC Talk is the best band that ever graced the earth.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4f64H5n

October 16, 2024/by CrossExamined

Navigating the American Political Landscape

Culture and Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Surviving political landscapes as a Christian has always been challenging (ancient Rome was harsh, y’all!). However, this U.S. presidential election cycle feels like the most difficult in recent history, and the American political landscape seems to grow more contentious every year. So, how do we navigate this minefield with truth, love, and joy? It’s not easy, but it can be simple.

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these] So, how do we navigate this minefield with truth, love, and joy? It’s not easy, but it can be simple. Let’s talk about how. Click To Tweet

Should we get Political at all?

First, let’s address the elephant (and donkey) in the room. Should Christians even get political? I mean, doesn’t Romans 13:1-7 basically tell us to obey the government God has allowed to rule over us? Yes, and no. Yes, we are absolutely to obey the government authorities unless they are asking us to violate God’s laws. However, we have a totally different form of government than the Roman Empire during the first century. The early church had no say in their government. They were under authoritarian control and could do little more than choose their attitude of servitude. However, the U.S. was founded as a democratic republic and expects participation as part of our civic responsibilities. We should voice our thoughts in various ways, including contacting our legislature and voting for the candidates we wish to represent us.

Everyone promotes their values and beliefs in the public sphere, whether those values and beliefs flow from truth, feelings, or faith. Our values are shaped by what we believe is true about the world and everything in it. If we believe the Bible is objectively true about God, the universe, and everything, we would be terrible citizens (much less Christians) if we didn’t use it to inform our values on laws and policies. Remember, there is no neutral. Every citizen uses their strongly held beliefs to determine how to interact in our political sphere. Christians have every right to do so as well, and even a mandate to do so as salt and light! (See Matthew 5:13-16.) Ask “How is the way I’m voting preventing decay in our society?” Political discourse is a good opportunity to demonstrate for your children how our faith is active in all parts of our lives, not something we put into a compartment and take out only on Sundays.

We do not have to hold our values quietly just because we believe they were instituted by God. While our primary citizenship is in God’s kingdom (and this earth for sure ain’t it!) we can strive to promote the best values possible while we reside in the here and now. In fact, everywhere biblical Christian values have been used as the foundation, society has flourished.1 They are verifiably good values to promote. (Note: Some books for further reading include Faithfully Different by Natasha Crain and We Will Not be Silenced by Erwin Lutzer.)

Yes, Get Political. But how?

So yes, we can get political, but how do we do so in ways that reflect Christ and spread the benefits of His morality?

Step 1 – Be loving and reasonable. Jesus told us that people should recognize Christians by our love (John 13:35), so first, as Mama Bear Lindsey Medenwaldt puts it plainly in her book Bridge-Building Apologetics, “Don’t be a jerk for Jesus.” Secondly, as much as it is up to us, we are to be at peace with all people (Romans 12:18). While we are called to defend our faith in 1 Peter 3:15, we should do so with gentleness and respect. Our tone should always be loving, kind, and reasonable, even when we need to be bold and unapologetic.

Philippians 4:5 reminds us that our reasonableness should be evident to everyone and that we should not be anxious for anything. We are on the side of truth, and the truth is on your side. We do not need to get frustrated or angry when people don’t agree with us, but rather should seek to be persuasive in how we communicate that truth. One of the best ways to do that is by using questions. Ask people what they believe, why they believe it, and how they came to that conclusion. And then be willing to amend your conclusions if someone presents evidence that you hadn’t considered before! Sometimes asking questions can gently reveal that a person’s beliefs are not built on solid foundations like logic or factual arguments. We also get the added benefit of building a relationship by listening to each other instead of just seeking to make our own point.

Step 2 – Don’t be silent. Once, I was chaperoning a field trip and had several unknown students assigned to my bus. While calling roll, I could not imagine how to pronounce the name L-a. When I cautiously asked for La, I was corrected, “It’s Ladasha. The dash don’t be silent, Miss.” While this was a humorous lesson for me in creative spelling, I couldn’t let go of the idea that the dash shouldn’t be silent. One of the most powerful speakers at the Reality Student Apologetics Conference this spring, La Nej Garrison, spoke about the dash between our birth date and death dates representing our lives. And that our lives should not be silent. God has given each of us a voice and a sphere of influence that includes your children, your friends, maybe even a public audience. Are you using your dash to glorify God and make Him known?

Your primary commission from Jesus is to go into the world and make disciples. While it’s tempting to create a small circle echo chamber of like-minded friends, that does nothing to spread the gospel message. Be willing to get uncomfortable and make friends with people who might disagree with you. Share the gospel. Love them loudly. Don’t be silent in the face of evil. Be the first to stand for what is true and good. Let your life speak volumes. People are listening and your children will learn how to live from your example.

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these] Share the gospel. Love people loudly. Don’t be silent in the face of evil. Be the first to stand for what is true and good. Click To Tweet

Step 3 – Do your own research. If we want to have reasonable, powerful conversations with our friends and family, we need to know what we’re talking about. While we live in the information age and anything we want to know is at our fingertips in a moment, there is too much information of varying quality, and everyone has a platform. It’s very important that you know who is worth listening to.

Start tracking reliable sources. Look for people who do not use outrage as clickbait. Reporters should stick to the facts and leave editorializing to the editorial page. Most of mainstream media tends to be biased, so make sure you are doing things like reading articles from both sides of the spectrum and watching C-Span instead of CNN. Try to find neutral outlets as much as possible.

Also, read the original documents when possible, like the Constitution or the text of a proposed bill. Don’t settle for some talking head telling you what a law says or what a candidate endorses. Read the law, platform, or speech for yourself. The media tends to name things in pithy ways that influence most people who never take the time to read them for themselves. People allow their opinions to be decided by the commentators’ name for a bill or the title of an article rather than individual research. (See our post about the 2022 Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. What people sensationally claimed was is in the bill didn’t show up anywhere in it.) Know what you’re promoting and voting for.

Step 4 – Consider the platform, policies, and personnel over the person. This year especially, our choice of presidential candidates leaves something (okay, a lot!) to be desired. Neither one seems to be appropriately moral (at least not in their pasts), and both are prone to exaggeration, misdirection, and straight up deceitfulness. Frankly, trying to listen to either of them talk is often unpleasant, but we’re voting for more than the person. (See John Ferrer’s article here on how we are voting for policies, platform, and personnel (like 4000 of them…). Which of these candidates has ideas that you want to duplicate in all spheres of government, like 4000 times?

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these]Which of these candidates has ideas that you want to duplicate in all spheres of government, like 4000 times? Click To Tweet

It would be LOVELY if we had a candidate that reflected Christ, didn’t have a messy past, was bold and confident while also being kind and reasonable. But as a nation, we didn’t vote to put those people on the ballot. SIGH. We have the choices we have.

Remember, Jesus Christ is King.

We do not serve a fallen god or a dead king. We serve the risen Jesus who is seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father right now. Nothing happens on this Earth that is not under His sovereignty. The same God who allowed Nebuchadnezzar to conquer His people rules over our elections, too. Sometimes, God needs to show His people how far we’ve fallen in order to call us to repentance. (And if there is one thing our nation needs, it’s a call to repentance!) Do not despair. You were born for such a time as this. Raise up your dragon slayers to slay the dragons of this world that oppose our God. Be bold. A wonderfully wise speaker, Laura Zifer Powell, at the Women in Apologetics conference this month made a statement that really inspired me. I’m paraphrasing here, but she said “why are you sitting on the couch watching superheroes battle the forces of darkness. You get to do that! Get off your couch and do spiritual warfare!”

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these] Get into the fray, Mama Bears. No matter how the election results roll in we can influence those around us and strive to improve our country and win souls to Jesus. Click To Tweet

Get into the fray, Mama Bears. No matter how the election results roll in we can influence those around us and strive to improve our country and win souls to Jesus. In fact, we often do best at winning souls when it looks like our side isn’t winning at all. Remember ancient Rome? When people saw the Christians facing their deaths singing worship to God, Christianity began to spread like a wildfire. I’d rather see that wildfire than win at the polls. If we could have both, that would be nice, but Jesus wins in the end. And we want to be Team Jesus most of all.

Recommended Resources:

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

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

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

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

Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

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

October 4, 2024/by CrossExamined

What is Woke?

Culture and Politics, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

A recent Huffington Post article about homeschool moms left me flabbergasted. I know, it’s HuffPo. I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but this article was truly shocking . . . because of the comments of the homeschool parents.

In the article, a curriculum developer is selling her books at homeschool conventions. She calls her trade a “girl-empowerment business.” Homeschool parents were rightly curious about the political slant of a historical curriculum and asked if this particular series was “woke.” The authors of the curriculum, asked “What do you mean by that?” (hat tip to Greg Koukl).[i] Now here is the troubling part. The homeschool parents didn’t know the answer. They knew they didn’t want woke, but they weren’t sure what they were rejecting or didn’t know how best to explain it. One exchange with the curriculum’s presenter went this way:

“I [the author] explain our product, how we use historical women to teach girls about their worth and potential. The mother says: “But is it woke? I mean, I don’t want to teach my daughter about woke.”

“What do you mean, ‘woke’?” I ask. . . She opens her mouth. Half-words and phrases stumble and tumble around. A few talking points from news sources fall out. Finally, she sighs. “I don’t know. Just tell me again what you write.”

How heartbreaking this article was to read! I totally expected our homeschool crowd to get this right, so when they didn’t, I immediately wanted to equip all Christian parents to be able to answer this question. We should strive to always understand the terms we use—especially if we are going to loudly reject it. By defining our terms, we can better learn how to help our kids navigate these muddy cultural waters.

Don’t just label things “Woke” without being able to explain why.

Woke has become an easy catch-all word to label things that are very liberal or progressive, or even just the things we disagree with ideologically. We find it far easier to label things as “woke” to indicate, “Danger! Toxic! Avoid this!”, rather than to take the time to research it for ourselves. But that hasty labeling risks yeeting the baby with the bathwater. And it doesn’t teach people how to chew through their ideological food, swallowing the meat, and spitting out the gristle (i.e., what doesn’t align with biblical Christianity).[ii] You don’t have to go read Mein Kampf or The God Delusion, but if you need to read complicated material, you’ll need to do so wisely, especially if you want to help your family and friends to do the same. If you don’t know why you avoid woke movies or books, they won’t understand how to navigate these concepts for themselves.

The HuffPo article helped us see that the word “woke,” the grammatical aberration that it is, is not going away. We need to know what it means when others use it and learn better questions to ask or terms to use that offer more clarity.

**Where did the word Woke come from?**

Are you awake yet? Stay awake. These phrases began to circulate generally in the African-American community and gained traction around the time of George Floyd’s death, suggesting that people needed to be aware of racism or to stay vigilant, so they are not harmed or mistreated by racism.[iii] When people described the process of becoming racially aware, they would say they woke up, and people began to use the term woke to imply that they were awake to what is happening and staying on top of the situation.

But the term evolved as the African American community started using woke to describe people that had been awakened to or were conscious of social, economic and racial inequalities, had ‘done the work’, and were educated about social injustice. However, the work produced by some of these scholars and authors often had a significant political slant, and conservatives began using the term as a negative insult. And busy parents, like myself, just adopted the word as a ‘no-no’ and moved on with our lives. We’re trying to survive sports practices, science fairs, and flu season. We don’t have time to pee in private, much less read every book and article that comes our way. Labeling things ‘mark and avoid’ is a survival skill. But it’s important, when you’re not in survival mode, to take a beat and learn what you mean by terms like woke.

**What does Woke mean now?**

In popular usage today, “woke” tends to mean something that has a left-leaning, liberal, or progressive slant especially regarding race issues. Additional characteristics of wokeism are extreme political correctness, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), and cancel culture. Woke resources often view everything through a lens of critical theory which, applied to race, becomes “critical race theory” (CRT).

What is CRT?

Uh oh, another boogeyman buzz word that is hard to define. Critical theory (which includes race theory, queer theory, etc.) basically critiques society by dividing people into oppressor vs. oppressed based on which groups they belong to. People are defined more by their group affiliation rather than seen for who they are as individuals. Humans are seen as naturally good until societal evils warp them. Then the voices of those who have been historically oppressed are given greater authority to speak due to their lived experiences. Experiences are too subjective to use as a foundation for truth, which is why Christians stand on the solid foundation of God’s word, balanced with rational thought, logic, and empirical truths. Considering the experiences of others helps us understand how policies and laws influence lives, which is a critical part of loving our neighbors as ourselves. In practice, however, critical theory creates new oppression as a solution for prior oppression. This dynamic results in less equality and more prejudice.

Leviticus 19:15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” (ESV)

While our current zeitgeist of radical empathy would suggest that truly being fair would mean to favor the oppressed in order to right historical mistreatment, the Bible holds a different standard. All humans are made in the image of God, and we want to avoid lenses that strip people of that dignity while conferring greater dignity to others.

**How does woke show up in our daily lives?**

In practice, woke often means using revisionist history to paint historical figures with a broad brush. It is often profoundly anti-American, sometimes Marxists, and overly critical of western civilization (think 1619 Project). When discussing books or curriculum, woke can mean something that presents only leftist viewpoint or oversimplifies a complex issue by vilifying people of the past unfairly. Some people in the past were straight-up villains, like our favorite whipping-boy Adolf Hitler. But most historical figures were complex, not all good or all bad. We need to treat them as whole persons as much as we can with the information available to us by studying history fully, considering the facts from primary sources as well as commentaries from historians.

Additionally, wokeness is deeply tied to social justice. Radical gender theory and LGBTQIA+ issues would now fall under the inclusion umbrella. Woke resources for children would include materials that separate gender from biological sex and present various parent structures as normal in children’s books, but also might include graphic sexual materials, even depicting homosexual or pedophilic sexual acts. But it’s important to note that not everyone who considers themselves “woke” agrees in supporting these extreme examples.

A Word of Warning

In discussing wokeness, we’re touching on some tangled and complicated issues. We do well to exercise caution and humility. The book of Hebrews offers an important insight here:

Hebrews 5:14 reminds us, “But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Our powers of discernment must be trained through constant practice. So, as we grapple with a shifting sense of “wokeness,” ask good questions, always comparing the world’s messages against God’s truths. Seek to understand. Weigh your words with humility and respect. Find common ground where you can, and balance truth with love. “Woke” is a heavy word, with lots of baggage. And it isn’t going away.

So, stay alert my friends.

References:

[i] Greg Koukl has made famous the “Columbo tactic”, a tool for apologists where they ask probing questions like “What do you mean by that?” to better clarify and assess the situation. See, Greg Koukl, Tactics, 10^th Anniversary Edition: A Gameplan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019).

[ii] This concept is called the “Chew and Spit method”, see Hillary Morgan Ferrer, et al., Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2019), 47-62.

[iii] Editor’s Note: Historically, the word “woke” originally meant something like “stay alert.” Black Americans in the early 20^th century and Jim Crow era would warn each other saying “stay woke,” meaning be on guard against threats of race-based violence, especially where there was an uptick in racial tensions (ex., recent Klan activity, rape-accusations, lynching, police harassment, etc). In recent years, the term reentered public discourse through Black Lives Matter (BLM), and the George Floyd protests in Ferguson Missouri (2014), where the term was resurrected with a similar meaning of “stay alert [to racial violence/injustice].” Arguably, BLM was already adapting the term at that time by infusing it with politically charged notions of social justice, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and Queer Theory. Regardless, the term has since been coopted and adapted by political progressives to cover a wider range of left-leaning issues, but instead of referring to alertness and racism specifically it’s now cast as a kind of “enlightenment” where people are finally able to see – as if waking up from a dreamy delusion – how oppressive power dynamics more or less shape the course of human history and modern society, regarding race, gender, sexuality, marriage and family, economics, politics, environment/climate, etc.

Pro-Life Apologetics from Scott Klusendorf’s The Case for Life

Culture and Politics, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

The debate over abortion remains one of society’s most divisive issues. Pro-life advocates argue for the rights of the unborn, emphasizing the sanctity of life from conception and advocating for policies to protect fetal humans. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates defend the right of individuals to make autonomous decisions about their bodies and reproductive health. Amid these deeply held convictions are discussions about the moral status of the unborn, making it a debate that is both intimate and public, personal and political.

Everyone Has An Equal Right to Life . . . Or Not

In his book, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture, pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf writes, “The question of truth and of human value are driving our national debates on abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).”[1] Klusendorf goes on to say, “The debates are contentious because they involve deep worldview commitments that get to the heart of who and what we are as people. But the debate itself is not complex. Either you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life or you don’t.”[2]

Klusendorf’s point encapsulates the underlying significance of this pro-life and pro-choice debate. The issue at hand goes beyond mere personal preference or opinion. It delves into fundamental questions about truth, human worth, and the essence of our existence. The complexity arises from the contrasting worldview commitments that shape our perspectives.

From Conception Onward

As Christians, we base our belief on the principle that every human being, starting from the moment of conception, has an equal and undeniable right to life. This belief aligns with the biblical truth that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by our Creator. Therefore, each individual deserves to be loved, protected, and respected from the moment of conception.

When we adopt the perspective from pro-life apologetics, we become active participants in the ongoing national conversations regarding the inherent worth and dignity of every unborn life. Given this moral issue’s sensitive and divisive nature, however, it is essential to approach pro-life apologetics with compassion and respect, striving to engage in constructive dialogue with those who may hold opposing views. By understanding and articulating the pro-life argument utilizing logic, science, and philosophy, you can effectively advocate for protecting innocent lives.[3]

The Case for Life Argument

In his book, “The Case for Life,” Klusendorf lays out a clear argument supporting the pro-life position. The crux of his argument centers around the idea that unborn human life has dignity and intrinsic value, deserving protection from the moment of conception. Klusendorf’s argument is presented in a syllogism (a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion).

Major Premise: It is morally wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Minor Premise: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Klusendorf’s explains his first premise in terms of the inherent value of human life and the nearly universally acknowledged ethical standard that taking innocent life is wrong. To develop his secondary premise he introduces some biological and philosophical grounding, asserting that human life commences at conception, thus human embryos and fetuses as integral members of the human community. By merging these two premises, Klusendorf reaches the conclusion that abortion – which, by definition, kills and unborn human being – is ethically unjustifiable.

Answering Objections

Klusendorf addresses common objections to this argument, such as claims that the unborn are not “persons” with rights or that women have a right to bodily autonomy that overrides the rights of the unborn. He critiques these objections by asserting that no morally relevant difference between the unborn and those already born would justify killing the former.

In short, Klusendorf’s pro-life argument presents a solid philosophical and moral framework that upholds the equal value of all human life from the moment of conception. Based on this premise, he convincingly concludes that abortion is inherently wrong.

If You’re Pro-Life, You Need This Book

Incorporating Scott Klusendorf’s teachings into pro-life advocacy can help believers engage in meaningful conversations about the value of life from a Christian perspective. By standing up for the dignity of all human beings, including those yet to be born and advocating against abortion, we honor God’s gift of life and promote a culture that cherishes every individual as precious in His sight, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of human life.

References:

[1] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians To Engage the Culture. 2d ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 2.

[2] Klusendorf 2023, 2.

[3] Editor’s Note: “The pro-life argument” refers not to a single line of argument but rather to a broad category of arguments. Klusendorf’s prolife argument is one of the most popular and widely respected, but there are other ways to argue the prolife position. One could focus on debunking abortion-choice claims, or discrediting abortion-choice culture, or exposing problems in abortion-choice policy. Or one could argue that abortion-choice advocates carry the heavier burden of proof, since they are arguing for killing, and have so far failed to resolve that burden of proof. Or one could argue that reasonable doubt regarding the status of the unborn is sufficient cause for provisional protection. There are many ways to argue the pro-life position, even if Klusendorf’s line of argument is one of the best overall arguments to work with.

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

Culture and Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four Strategies For Mandatory Diversity Training

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

Gray Rock: This is passive resistance, the safest option for most people. Present yourself as a boring gray rock, unengaged, uncommunicative, calm, offering only short answers, and limiting exposure. On social media this is called ghosting. As long as you don’t have to say or do something against your conscience, this strategy should work.

Spying/Whistle-blowing – a riskier option is to play along, engaging and cooperating as if you’re compliant but you’re really spying. You’re recording and gathering notes preparing to “blow the whistle.” Spying poses moral dilemmas as you may be acting against your conscience, or saying things that you don’t believe. That’s spiritually dangerous territory. Plus, whenever people do find out you’re the whistle-blower you’ll likely lose your job, or worse. This isn’t a great option unless the diversity training is very egregious, and you really know what you’re doing.

Outright resistance – another risky option is to openly resist. You could refuse to attend, or write a letter to the board, or stage a walk-out, or host a press conference, or things like that. Again, the risk of getting fired is high. Done right, however, it can be very effective, especially if most of the company is involved. Know that the bigger the protest, the harder it will be to pull off, and as tensions escalate you risk looking like the bad guy.

Trolling – This is an accelerationist strategy, where the “troll” gives false information – like jokes, sarcasm, or memes – to illicit responses that derail the event. Quick witted class clowns have been doing this at school for ages. Some people have just the personality, and skill set to pull this off. But it’s an advanced strategy. It can require you to know the material better than the trainer does, so you can exploit holes in their argument and gaps in their evidence. You risk coming off as adolescent, insincere, and rude. For Christians, this isn’t generally a safe strategy, especially if it turns into mocking people or picking fights. Expect to lose your job with this strategy too.

The 5th Strategy: Christian Wisdom

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

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

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

May 8, 2024/by Ty Unknown

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

Culture and Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

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:

Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?
Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the rightJesus?
Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?
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.

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

Culture and Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

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.

But Wait, There’s More

Purpose of the Book

What this book does well

Care for the LGBTQ+ Community to Come to Jesus

Unity of the Church

What this Book does poorly

The entire argument is incredibly flawed

Logical Leaps in Correlation

Unnecessary Political digs at conservatives throughout

There is no limiting principle

Conclusion

References:

Recommended Resources:

5 practical ways we can prepare our kids for AI:

#1 Teach them the habit of asking “Is this true?”

#2 Teach them to be slow to speak…and slow…to share

#3 Teach them to recognize propaganda

#4 Teach them proper expectations

#5 Teach them to write

Final thoughts

References:

Recommended Resources:

Should we get Political at all?

Yes, Get Political. But how?

Recommended Resources:

Don’t just label things “Woke” without being able to explain why.

Where did the word Woke come from?

What does Woke mean now?

What is CRT?

How does woke show up in our daily lives?

A Word of Warning

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Everyone Has An Equal Right to Life . . . Or Not

From Conception Onward

The Case for Life Argument

Answering Objections

If You’re Pro-Life, You Need This Book

References:

Recommended Resources On This Topic

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

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?

Closing Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Respect the Context

All to God’s Glory

Hints at the Trinity

Sacrifice and Submission

The Meaning of Head Coverings

Paul Was Teaching About Dignified Femininity Not About Fashion

References:

Recommended Resources On This Topic

**Where did the word Woke come from?**

**What does Woke mean now?**

**How does woke show up in our daily lives?**

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