Culture CrossExamined Archives - Page 2 of 14

Jesus Wasn’t a Refugee

It seems that every few years, Christians must deal with a new cultural narrative about who Jesus is and what He came to do. Contextualizing turns into syncretism. Jesus’s name is mixed in with the “gods” of the people. Suddenly we have different versions of Jesus made to fit contemporary expectations, more palatable to the masses. White Jesus. Hippie Jesus. Activist Jesus. And now, refugee Jesus.

Let me be clear: I think people’s intentions can be pure. People are trying to do the right thing bringing Jesus to our level. But making God in our own image or in the image of the culture has long-term ramifications that don’t end well and muddle the identity of Jesus and the Gospel.

Forget that He was a monotheistic Jewish Middle Easterner, following the Law of Moses, who claimed to be God in the flesh and died for the sins of mankind.

Bor-ing. We need a new Jesus. A relevant Jesus. A Jesus that gets us.

How to Contextualize

I have no problem with Christians helping people understand who Jesus is and why He came, especially for those who don’t understand or might have a wall up to His teachings. I’ve seen Christians wisely use the cultural times to their benefit. But this is always done in context with the Bible and who Jesus actually is. Hence, where we get the word “contextualization.” We’re not settling for partial truths and political bias, but seeking the whole truth and correcting bias. Paul was probably the best example of this. He says in 1 Corinthians 9:20-22:

“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” (NIV)

Notice something: Paul met people where they were at without compromising what was true about Jesus. This is brilliant. He sought to understand so he could be understood.

He did not make Jesus a Gentile to win gentiles. He did not make Jesus a sinner to win sinners. He did not make Jesus a politician to win at politics.

Get Out of Your Echo Chamber

There’s a big difference. We need to identify with the culture on some level when it comes to preaching the Gospel. I repeatedly see people refusing to leave their echo chambers to reach the lost. It’s as if they’re set in their ways and are almost cynical to the “youngins” and their weird hair, clothes, and language. We need to seek to understand the culture to reach them. But we don’t do this by deceiving people. Jesus was not an immigrant or a refugee as we’d see it today. As a child, Scripture records Him and His family fleeing from one part of the Roman Empire to another. But He returned home. Refugees find refuge in another country because they don’t or can’t return home. People conflate this story in Jesus’ childhood with our understanding of refugees today. It’s like nobody seeks to understand Jesus’s story. They exaggerate this to make Him culturally relevant today. We make it about us instead of Him.

Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is At Hand

He cared for the poor, helped the hungry, and healed the sick. But that’s not ultimately why He came. He came to save souls and tell people to repent of their sins. Yes, Jesus invited everyone to the table, but the problem is that not everyone wants to sit with Him! John 3 says that people love their darkness. They don’t want to come to light, to Jesus, because their sins would be exposed. This is the heart of humanity. It’s not like Jesus is saying, “come sit at the table and stay who you are because there’s no judgment here!” No. He confronted people like you and me with hard truths. He cared about you changing. He cared more for your heart than just your outward actions. Would we sit at the table with Jesus if we knew He would look deep into our soul and know our darkest sins and He would call us to repent from them? This is a more challenging Jesus for the masses to accept, but this is nothing new.

It seems rather anachronistic to think of Jesus as some sort of social justice warrior. Activism, as we know it today, would make no sense to Jesus back then. So, when we cram Jesus’s 1st-century culture into our 21st-century world, we drastically change His message. He isn’t our political mascot. He’s The Son of God, the Lord of all.

Millenials: An Undeveloped Generation

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined

Millennials tend to think and feel differently than previous generations. Their behaviors, buying habits, and brand loyalty (or lack of it) are far less predictable than those of their parents, and certainly grandparents. Yet the one thing that appears predictable among most millennials—is their abandonment of Christianity.

Despite the 24/7 streaming and uploading, millennials feel alienated, and carry with them a skeptical spirit to authority—especially in the church and in government. I have spent the past twenty years working with millennials, and have seen the good and the bad with these young people. I love this generation and feel they get a bad rep most of the time. So, I would like to briefly touch on three key areas that are commonly underdeveloped in millennials, and provide insight on how you can build relationships with them. Now before I go any further, my purpose in using the term “underdeveloped” is not a put-down of millennials, but a cultural and generational fact.

Underdeveloped Brains

In certain areas of life millennials are not progressing as quickly as previous generations did. This is causing many parents to be concerned, and has resulted in a rise of depression among millennials. According to psychologist Laurence Steinberg of Temple University, by the late twenties, “There’s better communication between parts of the brain that process emotions and social information—like what people think of you—and the parts that are important for planning ahead and balancing risk and reward.”[1]

It’s important to understand the underdeveloped brain because it affects the identity formation of every young person. If you have a twentysomething right now, your son or daughter is still figuring out who he or she is, what he or she likes, and what he or she should do. Choices and decisions are affected in a big way by the maturity of your child’s brain. With brains that are still maturing, these kids need mom and dad to help them make the right decisions.

Underdeveloped Faith

I have had millennials tell me they feel they’ve gotten the short end of the stick when it came to faith development. According to their recollections, the Bible was little more than an Instagram post in their lives. These young people clearly observed that the faith they grew up in was a cultural activity instead of a truly spiritual one. Today, older millennials have a hard time understanding how or why faith should play a role in their careers, personal interests, or future lives.

Yet, despite the underdeveloped faith experienced among millennials—they are yearning to believe and live out a faith that is true. Stop and think about that for a moment. After all the years in church, with millions upon millions of dollars spent on private Christian education, camps, retreats, and so on—nearly 20 percent of millennials under age 30 are no longer affiliated with the religion they were brought up to believe. However, these same young adults who left the religion of their upbringing didn’t trade it in for another religion. The majority of millennials, raised in a Christian home, became dissatisfied with Christianity because of their doubts, skepticism, and the hypocrisy they witnessed in the church. They simply abandoned their faith.

Underdeveloped Values

Sadly, the sacredness and purity of sex within marriage is seemingly lost in the culture embraced by millennials. Deep down that’s what they truly want, but they don’t know how to achieve it. So many young people aren’t getting married because they feel they ruined their chances by sleeping around, or they’re afraid if they get married they might get divorced like their parents.

Much more can be written about millennials, so I encourage you to get my book Abandoned Faith: Why Millennials Are Walking Away and How You Can Lead Them Home for more insight. But as I wrap up this post, I want to leave you with five action steps that you can apply to building a relationship with a millennial.

First, simply ask how you can pray for him or her. They may not be a Christian, but millennials often love to discuss spiritual matters.

Second, make time for them. Plan weekly engagements that allows them to feel safe, and open to talk about things they want to talk about.

Third, be as transparent as possible. Millennials have a “prove it to me” mindset, so if they feel you don’t care, or smell a hint of hypocrisy, they’re gone.

Fourth, teach them true doctrine. Millennials may not agree with what you believe, but they respect your belief, and hate it when Christians compromise in order to be relevant.

And fifth, release their creativity. Give them opportunity to serve and be a part of something that points to community, love, and true forgiveness found in Christ!

Endnotes

[1] Melinda Beck, “Delayed Development: 20-Somethings Blame the Brain,” The Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2012, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443713704577601532208760746.

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus is the Only Way?

Culture CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Is it hateful or arrogant to claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation? Charles Templeton thought so. He argued:

“Christians are a small minority in the world. Approximately four out of every five people on the face of the earth believe in gods other than the Christian God. The more than five billion people who live on earth revere or worship more than three hundred gods. If one includes the animist or tribal religions, the number rises to more than three thousand. Are we to believe that only Christians are right?”[1]

What are we to make of Templeton’s claims? Is it presumptuous to say that Jesus is the one true way of salvation? Or even worse, are Christians guilty of committing “absurd religious chauvinism” as some put it?[2] These common refrains are the fundamental tenets of religious pluralism — the belief that all religions are essentially the same and lead to God.

In a culture that abhors dogmatic truth claims, should Christians heed the warnings of the religious pluralists and stop teaching that Jesus is the only way of salvation? I don’t think so for a couple of reasons. First, religious pluralism is a self-defeating proposition. It crumbles in the face of logical scrutiny. And second, pluralism ignores scientific and historical finding. Let’s explore both in turn.

Religious Pluralism is Self-Defeating

To support their claim, religious pluralists share the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The parable goes something like this:

There were five blind men who all encountered an elephant in a field. The first man grabbed the tail and said, “oh it’s a rope.” The second blind man touched a leg and asserted, “no, it’s a tree.” The third blind man grabbed the trunk and declared, “no, it’s a snake.” The fourth blind man grabbed a tusk and cried, “no, it’s a spear.” The fifth blind man touched its side and exclaimed, “no, it’s a wall.”

The pluralist argues that the blind men are like the different world religions. Each belief system naively thinks their view of reality is the correct one, but, in the end, they’re all misguided. Rather, all the religions are fundamentally the same and will ultimately lead to the same place. No single “right way” exists according to the pluralist.

The Religions Contradict Each Other

While pluralists like to mention that all religions teach essentially the same thing, nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take, for example, the nature of God in each major religion. Hinduism acknowledges multitudes of gods that are one with creation. Buddhism, while extremely spiritual, does not worship a god. New Age spirituality teaches that each person should see themselves as god. Islam believes in one God, named Allah, who is transcendent above creation. Judaism believes in a transcendent God named Jehovah. Christianity teaches that God is triune in nature, and is both transcendent and immanent in his creation.

Let’s look at one more example — how each religion views Jesus of Nazareth. Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age all say he was a wise, moral teacher. Islam teaches that he was a prophet, though not divine, and that he didn’t die on a cross. Judaism teaches that he was a false prophet who led many astray and was crucified for blasphemy. Christianity teaches that Jesus was divine, he died on a cross, and he rose again from the dead.

If space permitted me, I could also explain how each of these religions differ on creation, scripture, the nature of humanity, sin, salvation, and eternal life. In other words, these religions have almost nothing in common.

Pluralism Defies Logic

To say all religions teach the same thing commits all kinds of logical fallacies. For example, Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity. God, however, cannot be both a Trinity (Christianity) and not a Trinity (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way.

This would violate the Law of Noncontradiction which teaches that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. To suggest, therefore, that all religions can be true about the nature of God violates one of the most fundamental laws of logic.

Or consider the nature of Jesus. It cannot be true that Jesus is God (Christianity) and not God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way. Again, this would violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Pluralism Makes Exclusive Claims Too

Ironically, pluralists make exclusive claims themselves. In effect, they’re saying that pluralism is true, while all contrary religious claims are false. That is to say, pluralists are guilty of doing the very same thing that they chastise the other religions for doing.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, should we say the pluralists are hateful for saying their view of reality is the right one while all of us naive religious folk are wrong?

Pluralism Ignores Scientific and Historical Facts

Now it’s one thing to say that all the different religions can’t be right. It’s another to claim that one of them is the truth. Strong evidence, though, points in the direction of Christianity.

Scientific Evidence

Consider the origin of the universe. All the scientific data suggests that space, time, and matter, all came into existence simultaneously a finite time ago. Meaning the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

This fits nicely with the Christian belief that God created the world out of nothing, but it contradicts pantheistic religions such as Hinduism which teach that god is one with the universe — bound by space, time, and material. Additionally, the scientific data that the universe came into existence a finite time ago contradicts Buddhism’s belief in an eternal/cyclical universe.

The scientific evidence leaves the theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Deism) as possibilities. Yet when we turn our attention to Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity quickly rises to the top.

Historical Evidence

For example, ancient historians are unanimous that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion in the first century. Islam, however, denies that Jesus — a prophet from God — was crucified. Since dozens of independent historical sources confirm Jesus’ death by crucifixion, we can be confident that Islam doesn’t pass the historical test as the one true religion. In fact, Jesus’ crucifixion is so certain that prominent skeptic scholar John Dominic Crossan admits, “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[3]

With only three viable options remaining, we turn our focus to the resurrection. Did Jesus rise again from the dead? If he did, Christianity is true, while Judaism and Deism are not. And we have lots of reasons to believe Jesus did, in fact, rise again. Let me give you two quick examples.

First, Christians claim that women were the first eye-witnesses to this incredible event. In a culture where nobody took a woman’s word seriously, it’s hard to imagine that Christians would have made up this detail. Since the early Christians would have had no motivation to make up this embarrassing fact, we have good reason to believe that this detail accurately portrays what really happened.

Additionally, Jesus’ closest followers were all willing to die for their belief that he rose again. Don’t you think, at some point, at least one of them would have caved under the threat of crucifixion or beheading and said the entire thing was a hoax? Yet not one of them did. This is telling, especially since those same disciples acted like cowards during Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.

If Jesus rose again from the dead, that means what he claimed about himself has been vindicated — namely that he is God, and that he is the one true way of salvation.

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus Is the Only Way?

I don’t know anyone who would say that Jesus of Nazareth was hateful. Most actually affirm the exact opposite, he was incredibly moral and loving. Yet it’s this same Jesus who makes the claim that he is “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

As we ponder the question at hand, consider the following statement by outspoken atheist and famed illusionist Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me alone and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”[4]

So is it hateful to tell people Jesus is the only way? I submit to you that it’s the loving thing to do.

Footnotes

[1] Charles Templeton, Farewell to God (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart), 27
[2] John Hick and Paul Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), 141
[3] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145.
[4] Quoted in, Justin Taylor, “How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone to Not Proselytize?” TheGospelCoalition.org, 18 Nov 2009, accessed 20 March 2023 at: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-much-do-you-have-to-hate-somebody-to-not-proselytize/

Can Moral Guilt Feelings Ever Be Objective?

Atheism, Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bobby Conway

The feeling of moral guilt is a universal experience – that inward gnaw or inner ouch that we have done something wrong. It is that feeling a line has been crossed, a law has been broken, which leaves one wondering if we are genuinely guilty. But are these feelings just that—feelings? A mere subjective experience? A cognitive disrupt? A snafu?

**Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?**

Well, that depends. A person can feel guilty and not be guilty, i.e., pseudo guilt, while a person can also be guilty and not feel guilty. This may be the result of an anesthetized conscience, one’s moral ignorance, some level of psychopathy, or whatever the case may be. In the event we feel guilty, how can we know if our feelings are objective? The answer is surprisingly simple. We should look for a corresponding link between our feelings of guilt and our moral actions. For example, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a local bank that he never did, then he’s not experiencing objective guilt, but from a bad case of pseudo guilt. However, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a bank because he did, then his feelings of guilt are objective in that his feelings correspond to reality. In other words, there’s a corresponding link. An objective match. The reason Steve feels guilty is because he is guilty.

Unfortunately, some people wrongly relegate our feelings to the subjective department, while claiming only reason is objectively dependable. That’s not only wrong. It’s naïve, really naïve.

Just as our reason can provide logically informative thoughts that are either true or false, objective, or subjective, so to our feelings can provide emotionally informative thoughts that are also either true or false, objective, or subjective. Therefore, it’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

It’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

Feelings Aren’t All Bad

While our feelings certainly can mislead us, they also have the capacity to capture our attention and rightfully so. And this is especially true relating to feelings of guilt. From the Christian worldview perspective, our feelings of guilt are God’s way of grabbing our attention. Like a check engine light, these feelings are meant to alert us to the objective fact that we have failed to make good on our moral obligations. That we have offended our Moral Lawgiver. That we have fractured our relationship with him and need moral repair. But fortunately, God has not left us without a remedy. There’s a way to unload our guilt. And that way is through Christ. Via his atonement, believers can both acknowledge their moral trespass and ask for forgiveness and subsequently experience both forgiveness for their objectively morally guilty action, while also expecting to have their feelings of guilt soothed on account of Christ’s atoning love and grace.

Five Reasons Why 30% of Students Aren’t Dropping Out of Church

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

As American culture grows increasingly more secular, churches are no longer carrying the kind of authority and influence they once had. Church is no longer a top priority for the bulk of young Americans, and a growing number of Christians don’t see the need to put down roots in a church.

However, it may surprise you that there’s still a dedicated population of young people who say church is a top priority, and that faith is the single-most important thing in their lives. This is promising—and is something we should get excited about.

So, instead of another report about the horrible and depressing findings about Millennials (Gen Y) and Plurals (Gen Z)—I thought it important to share with you five encouraging findings that explains why 30% of young Christians remain committed to church.

Reason Number One: They Have Personal Relationship with Jesus

Most young people who were raised in the church, either never made a genuine profession of faith, or were never discipled by adult Christians. However, this 30% of active Christians in the church have a bona fide relationship with Jesus. To this group, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. They didn’t just go to church because their parents did. They keep going to church because they desire to grow in their faith with other like-minded Christians.

Reason Number Two: They Desire to Learn the Bible

These young Christians have a big appetite to learn what they believe and to do what the Bible says to do. A great verse that speaks to this is James 1:22, which reads, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (NIV). This group of young people is not looking to be deceived, but rather perceive the will of the Lord for their lives. And they know the Bible has the answers they can trust.

Reason Number Three: They were Raised by Parents Who Value Church

As a pastor, and a father of four, my wife and I have seen firsthand the impact the church has had in our children’s lives. When parents make church a priority, it instills in their children to never give it up. For these young Christians, church has not just been a great resource, but a place they call home. For them, church is a place they have come to trust and rely on to speak truth into their lives, and help them develop their spiritual gifts. So, kudos to you, mom and dad, for teaching your kids the importance of church!

Reason Number Four: They Have Community In Their Church

The relational aspect of a young person’s faith is huge! Meaningful relationships are a vital part of the success and well-being of young people. Without community, young people are prone to stray from the faith, and get caught up in all sorts of things they will later regret. Thus, one thing we have found with this 30% of churchgoers is their loyalty and accountability to strong community.

Reason Number Five: They Love to Serve

The final contributing factor we’ve discovered that keeps this group engaged in the church is a sense of mission. Serving others at church gives purpose to young people and brings a sense of fulfillment in their lives. I remember one student telling me at one of our Summit sessions that serving others at church helps her draw closer to Christ. I couldn’t agree more!

So, parents, take heart in knowing that there is a remnant of young Christians serving faithfully in their churches; and may we join together in praying that God will use them to reach their generation with the gospel of Jesus Christ!

What Does it Mean to be Unequally Yoked?

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Many people see “unequally yoked” in a Bible verse or hear it in conversation and seem to have one of two thoughts come into their mind: (1) Make sure I’m equally yoked with my spouse, or (2) Why does Paul care about anyone’s egg yolks, much less them being equal?

As important as getting good protein matters, this verse definitely doesn’t have anything to do with poultry. And some are surprised to learn that it’s not limited to marriage. I want to help break this down more.

What is a Yoke Anyways?

A yoke is a wooden beam that connects two large animals, like oxen, and helps them work equally and together. They carry the burden of work together. It would be attached to a plow or cart, and they’d pull it simultaneously as partners. Basically, they’re teamed up together. So with that in mind, let’s read the scripture:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with the devil? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
2 Corinthians 6: 14-18 (ESV)

With the description of being “yoked” together, picture the image of the oxen yoked together, and imagine that they’re uneven, that one ox is yoked improperly, and it’s off balance. This causes the cart to go uneven, and the oxen cannot work together. This causes them to go around in circles or stop altogether. I also envision a three-legged race where people have their legs tied together, and they have to work together to get to the finish line, but one person either refuses to move, or they were tied incorrectly, and they can’t work together because of it. One person is just dragging the other like a bag of rocks, trying to progress but can’t.

What is the Context?

As with any passage of Scripture, it’s helpful to know who’s writing, why he’s writing, and whom he’s writing to. Paul is writing this letter to the Corinthian church to defend his authority and denounce people who were twisting truth. There always seemed to be moral issues within the church, and in both letters to the Corinthians, Paul addresses this. In chapter 6, Paul just got done addressing the Corinthian’s belief that Paul “restricts” them.

Paul loved the Corinthians, and he wanted them to know that. In chapter 6 verses 11-13, He says that they feel hurt by him and restricted, but he’s saying, no, I’m not restricting you. He’s saying that they’re restricting themselves, ironically, through their affection to the world and pride within themselves.

This is so familiar, isn’t it? We see this today, too, where people think it’s “unloving” or “judgmental” to even talk about moral restrictions.

With that as a backdrop to the verses about being unequally yoked, we can better understand why Paul would use that as an example. Paul is speaking to the overly broad affections of the Corinthian Christians. They had joined themselves —yoked themselves— to unbelievers, preventing their reconciliation with Paul. Paul is saying not to yoke together in this way because it causes damage to their relationship with God and other believers. The idea of “do not be unequally yoked together” is based on Deuteronomy 22:9, which prohibits yoking together two different animals. It’s talking about joining two things that should not be joined. Like ketchup on ice cream. Or using turpenoid with acrylic paint.

Or like pineapple on pizza. (Fight me.)

Many people use this passage when talking about marrying an unbeliever, which is true, but Paul is talking about much more than just that. It really applies to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs. In other words, it’s “conforming to the world,” as it says in Romans 12:2.

“Unequally yoked” refers to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs.

On the other side, some people use this verse to say we should never even be around or have anything to do with people with different beliefs than we do, and that’s just demonstrably false. Jesus didn’t even do this. What Paul is not saying is that we should never associate with unbelievers. The idea is to be in the world but not of the world. We’re not meant to be theological hermits in our religious echo chambers, only associating with people that agree with us. This isn’t biblical and doesn’t follow the biblical command to make disciples in Matthew 28 or to know what we believe and why we believe it, as it says in 1 Peter 3:15. We hide our light under a bush, and Jesus says not to do that, we need to let it shine. This doesn’t mean that if we have a weak conscience or struggle with being impressionable or people pleasers, we need to put ourselves in spiritually dangerous positions. We each need to discern our sensitivities and be wise about them. But that doesn’t mean we need to treat unbelievers with contempt or develop a superiority complex within ourselves by using this verse as an excuse to never associate with people of a different viewpoint or beat Christians over the head if they’re kind or friendly with unbelievers.

That’s simply unbiblical and frankly pretty unhealthy, in my opinion.

I mean, here we are speaking about yokes… some people place an impossible yoke on others, placing a burden that Jesus came to relieve. They use this passage in an extreme way, as a weapon, almost against their fellow brethren. There is no pleasing them. They completely miss the point of the passage.

But isn’t it more loving to share their yoke?

The difference here has a lot to do with boundaries. The Corinthian Christians thought, much like people do today, that it’s “loving” to accept people’s sin along with righteousness, darkness along with light, the devil along with Christ. When Paul says not to be unequally yoked, I’d like to think of it as the first-century version of the coexist or tolerance sticker. Don’t be a coexist sticker. You can’t just add the love of God without renouncing evil.

The best example of the context of what Paul is saying here is to look at the behavior of the Corinthians and see that he’s saying that they thought like worldly people, not like godly people. Because of their unhealthy ungodly associations, it caused them to stumble and sin. Paul is correcting this and trying to reconcile with them.

To be yoked together with someone means that you are in a compromising partnership with them, and you’re compromising your beliefs to do it. It’s a type of syncretism. This is mixing the Christian message with the more culturally accepted beliefs around you and making a hybrid sort of Christianity that seems to work for everyone. But really, it’s for the purpose of not offending those around you. Compare this with what’s called contextualization, which is what we want to do when sharing the gospel in a culturally appropriate way with unbelievers while not sacrificing the truth of the gospel to appease the people and culture.

A Wolf in the Sheep Pen

4. Is the NT True?, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

The church service at our suburban Cincinnati non-denominational church had barely ended when I started receiving text messages from friends. All of them shared some version of the same question my wife and I were asking each other about the sermon we had just heard from a visiting preacher: “What in the world was that?!” The simple answer was that we had unknowingly let a wolf in the sheep pen.

The sermon was delivered by a man who on the surface was someone we could trust. He was a professor from a reputable Christian university, with master’s degrees in both Divinity and New Testament Studies and a Ph.D. in Philosophy/New Testament Exegesis. He had preached at our church on several occasions over the years. His sermons had never been notably good or bad. But this Sunday morning was different. He had more than a message to deliver.

He had an agenda.

Scripture Twisting

The visiting preacher’s message was based on Ephesians 2:11-22, a text that starts with a “therefore” connecting it to the previous passage. That means it’s sandwiched between Paul’s explanation of Christ’s person and mission at the beginning of Chapter 2, and his clarification in Chapter 3 that the Gospel is also meant for the Gentiles.

The unmistakable point of this passage is that the Law, which had excluded non-Jews, had been superseded by the grace we receive through Christ’s sacrifice. It’s about Spirit-vs-Law, grace-vs-works. It’s a call to unity wherein Paul was exhorting his readers to recognize that the Gentiles were no longer “foreigners and aliens” but are fellow members of God’s household. He was clarifying a theological point about the unifying nature of salvation and the shared solution to our human rebellion and hostility toward God.

Changing the Subject

Our guest preacher acknowledged all this in passing. But four minutes into his message, things took an insidious turn. His focus subtly shifted from the solution for man’s hostility toward God to the reality of human beings’ hostility toward one another. Suddenly, we were hearing about diversity, inclusion, “minority status,” and the human inclination for conflict.

He had changed the subject. His goal had not been to exegete the passage in question; it had been to deliver a cultural message.

Once the subtle change of subject morphed into the central point, we were treated to a lecture about a lack of diversity in the demographics of typical suburban midwestern community churches like ours. We were warned about Evangelical Christianity’s bent toward a toxic “Christian Nationalism.” These topics were lead-ins to the message he really wanted to deliver. That came when he began reading us letters he had received from his diverse list of friends in response to a query he had offered them: “What do you want white American Christians to understand about Christians like you?

The specter of division is built right into his question. And it didn’t take long for it to bear fruit.

Critiquing People They’ve Never Met

Though he later denied knowing much about Critical Race Theory (CRT) or having any intention of talking about it, the letters he read could have formed a bullet point summary of its tenets. They included the declaration that “it’s not enough for white Christians to be ‘”non-racist,” we need them to be ‘anti-racist,”’ and the demand that “we need white brothers and sisters to not only acknowledge their own racist tendencies, but to also confront and challenge the racism of family, friends, co-workers, and church folk.” We were called on to “reimagine and reinvent systems that make it more difficult for African Americans to realize the American dream.” And we were “comforted” in learning that a woman who had never met a single person in our congregation had assured us, “I do not hate you. I just pray that one day I will be able to wholeheartedly forgive you.”

It isn’t hard to imagine the damage this thirty-minute cultural hand grenade caused when it detonated inside our church. So, it pays to stop at this point and reflect on the claims and assumptions built into these serious accusations and ask how they are in any way related to the text in Ephesians 2:11-22.

They aren’t. And that’s the problem.

Eisegesis -vs- Exegesis

Our visiting preacher wasn’t exegeting the meaning of the text or drawing an application from (ex in Greek) it. He was imposing his own predetermined view into (eis in Greek) the passage. That’s called eisegesis. It’s the opposite of exegesis.

No doubt, racism is a blight on society. We all need to talk about it. But making generalized assumptions about the actions and attitudes of entire groups of people we don’t know, and segregating “white Christians” from “Christians of color,” are not good alternatives for seeing every human as being made in the image of God.

Racism was his topic of choice that day. Unfortunately, the method he used to address it is a microcosm of a trend that is metastasizing inside the church. Our congregation saw it in real-time. But the more dangerous kind of eisegesis happens slowly and insidiously.

Creeping on the Sheep

The tentacles of “wokeness” are slithering into our churches under the guise of social justice, inclusivity, tolerance, and love. But the head of the hydra is the same as it’s always been. It’s the human propensity to interpret God’s word through the lens of self.

One of the main features of our guest preacher’s sermon was the repeated exhortation to accept his point of view based on the experiences of others. Though the logical flaw in that practice is obvious – alternative experiences can make the opposite point – it turns up again and again inside the church.

Unlike the full-frontal assault our congregation faced, the more common approach is subtle. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Alisa Childers recently exposed it stealthily baked into a wildly popular churchwide youth curriculum. It’s easier to access young minds in their formative stages when parents aren’t in the room.

When Your Guard is Down

Christian colleges are no different. Astute students expect to confront the all-too-typical atheist professor at the State University. They arrive at school with their antennae up. But some choose to avoid that kind of opposition by attending a Christian college. It seems like a safer environment. Parents and students assume the faculty and staff at a Christian school will be the type to critique the culture from a biblical point of view instead of the other way around. So, they enter with their guard down.

But the fences around Christian colleges don’t keep out bad ideas. Remember, our visiting preacher had been a professor at one for many years. How many young minds had been influenced by his eisegetical methods during that time?

Maybe those who engage these issues in these ways are doing so with pure motives. Maybe they’re simply mistaken. We can be charitable and allow that possibility. But that doesn’t mean we have to be passive when it happens. Beware the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’re not going away. And they’re finding new ways to sneak into the sheep pen.

7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

In case you haven’t seen it yet, there’s a $100 million advertising campaign that launched this year across the United States and is aimed at helping rescue Jesus’s reputation from the “damage” done by His followers. It features a website, billboards in major cities, and ads that have been viewed 300 million times. “He Gets Us[i],” as the campaign is known, is funded by anonymous donors. If you haven’t seen the ads yet, you likely will soon.

Many Christians immediately have a problem with the idea that Jesus would in some way be “marketed.” As a former marketing executive and adjunct market research professor, I don’t necessarily think such a marketing campaign is inherently problematic. Marketing is simply the discipline of effectively getting a given message to a given audience. If your church has a website, you’re “marketing.” If you have a board in front of your church that announces the weekly sermon subject, you’re “marketing.” If you pass out tracts about Jesus, you’re “marketing.”

In other words, if donors are paying to tell the world about Jesus on a grand scale so that more people may come to a saving knowledge of Him, praise God.

But the message shared better be an accurate message about Jesus, lest you’re actually leading people away from Him in some way.

And therein lies the problem with He Gets Us. 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.

Since many people will be discussing the campaign in coming months, I want to highlight seven significant problems to watch out for and to share with friends who may be misled by what they see.

1. The fact that Jesus “gets us,” stripped from the context of His identity, is meaningless.

The name of the campaign alone should raise at least a preliminary red flag for Christians. Generally speaking, when people or churches focus on the humanity of Jesus—an emphasis on the idea that “He was just like us!”—it’s to the exclusion of His divinity. But Jesus matters not primarily because He understands what it’s like to be human, but because of who He is. In other words, it’s only His identity as God Himself that makes the fact that He “gets us” even relevant.

Why?

If Jesus wasn’t God, it doesn’t matter that He understands what it’s like to be human. Literally every other human has experienced humanity as well! Who cares that this Jesus fellow “gets” humanity like everyone else? But if Jesus was God, the incarnation becomes an amazing truth, because the God of the universe also experienced the nature of humanity.

Of course, if the campaign simply had a title which lacked clarity but its execution was something very different, there wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Read on.

2. Jesus is presented as an example, not a Savior.

There’s nothing I’ve seen or read in the campaign that presents Jesus as God Himself or a Savior for humanity. The questions asked and answered on the site include things like: Was Jesus ever lonely? Was Jesus ever stressed? Did Jesus have fun? Did Jesus face criticism?

But again, if Jesus was nothing more than a human, why are we even asking these questions? We could just as well be asking, Was George Washington ever lonely? Was George Washington ever stressed? Did George Washington have fun? Did George Washington face criticism?

The campaign wants you to care about Jesus because He’s a great moral example. They say, for instance, “No matter what we think of Christianity, most people can agree on one thing. During his lifetime, Jesus set a pretty good example of peace and love.”

But if that’s all Jesus is—a good example—don’t spend millions on a campaign to tell people about Him. We can find good human examples all over the place. Jesus is a good example—the ultimate example—but most importantly, He’s the Son of God. That’s why His example matters.

3. The campaign reinforces the problematic idea that Jesus’s followers have Jesus all wrong.

Jon Lee, one of the chief architects of the campaign, says the team wanted to start a movement of people who want to tell a better story about Jesus [ii] and act like him. Lee states, “Our goal is to give voice to the pent-up energy of like-minded Jesus followers, those who are in the pews and the ones that aren’t, who are ready to reclaim the name of Jesus from those who abuse it to judge, harm and divide people.”

For 2,000 years, people have done terrible things in the name of Christ—things that Jesus Himself would never have approved of. There’s no question in that sense that people have “abused” the name of Jesus for their own evil purposes.

But in today’s culture, there’s a popular notion that Jesus was the embodiment of love and all things warm and fuzzy, whereas His followers who talk about judgment, sin, objective morality, the authority of Scripture, and so on, are hopelessly at odds with what He taught. The He Gets Us campaign plays straight into that misconceived dichotomy.

Christians who adhere to clear biblical teachings on hot topics like the sanctity of life, gender identity, and sexuality, for example, are consistently accused of “harming” others by even holding those beliefs. Those who speak the truth about what God has already judged to be right and wrong are accused of being “judgmental” themselves. Those who understand Jesus to be the Son of God—the embodiment of truth, not warm fuzzies—are accused of being divisive when rightly seeking to divide truth from error as the Bible teaches (1 John 4:6).

So the question is, when Lee says that he wants to rescue the name of Jesus from those who “abuse it to judge, harm and divide people,” does he mean that he wants to give people a more biblical understanding of Jesus, or does he want to rescue an unbiblical, culturally palatable version of Jesus from followers who proclaim truth that people don’t want to hear?

I think the answer is clear from my next point.

4. The campaign reinforces what culture wants to believe about Jesus while leaving out what culture doesn’t want to believe.

Whereas the campaign is seeking to give people a fresh picture of Jesus, all it really does is reinforce the feel-good image culture already has. A representative web page[iii], for example, talks about how Jesus “invited everyone to sit at his table.” The text talks about how “inclusive” Jesus was, how the “religious do-gooders began to whisper behind his back,” and how “the name of Jesus has been used to harm and divide, but if you look at how he lived, you see how backward that really is. Jesus was not exclusive. He was radically inclusive.”

Of course Jesus welcomed everyone around His table. And surely people need to hear that. But He welcomed everyone because everyone needs to hear His message about people’s need for repentance and salvation! Meanwhile, He Gets Us presents Jesus’s actions as though they merely represented an example of how to get along well with others: “Strangers eating together and becoming friends. What a simple concept, and yet, we’re pretty sure it would turn our own modern world upside down the same way Jesus turned his around 2,000 years ago.”

Of course, if you’re nothing more than a human (see point 1), there’s not much more to take from Jesus’s actions than a social example of playing well with others.

5. The campaign characterizes the so-called culture war in terms of secular social justice rather than underlying worldview differences.

On a page titled, “Jesus was fed up with politics, too,” it says, “Jesus lived in the middle of a culture war…And though the political systems were different (not exactly a representative democracy), the greed, hypocrisy, and oppression different groups used to get their way were very similar.” The page, like many others on the site, has hashtags “#Activist#Justice#RealLife.”

For those familiar with Critical Theory and how it roots secular social justice ideas, this a pretty clear statement of the mindset from which He Gets Us is coming.

If you’re not familiar with how secular social justice ideas and manifestations differ from those of biblical justice, please see chapter 10 in my book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture;[iv] I don’t have the space here to fully reiterate how opposed they are. But the bottom line is that secular social justice is rooted in the idea that the world should be viewed through the lens of placing people in “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups based on social power dynamics. The problems we have in society, according to this view, are that societal structures have produced norms that oppress certain groups, and those groups must be liberated. For example, in such a framework, those who feel oppressed by the gender binary need to be freed from society’s norms of “male and female.” Women whose access to abortion is limited need to be freed from constraints on “reproductive justice.”

The fact that He Gets Us believes culture wars are about the “oppression” different groups use to get their way presupposes a (secular) Critical Theory understanding of the world. In reality, it’s the opposing worldviews in culture that lead to such fundamental disagreement. As I explain throughout Faithfully Different, cultural “wars” over things like the sanctity of life and sexuality are ultimately rooted in disagreements between those who believe in the moral authority of the individual (the secular view) and those who believe in the moral authority of God and His Word (the biblical view).

6. The campaign’s stated goal is about inspiration, not a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

The president of the marketing agency behind He Gets Us has explicitly said[v], “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.”

Now, as someone with a professional marketing background myself, I very much understand the fact that not every campaign has the goal of getting someone to “purchase” (or, in this case, “convert”). Marketers know that people generally go through preliminary phases of awareness, then interest, and then desire before committing to action. So if this campaign were only working at generating more and deeper awareness of or interest in a biblically faithful Jesus, that would be no problem. But if your goal is inspiration, you’re going to generate an awareness of and interest in a Jesus completely detached from the one a person should be giving their life to.

If it’s not immediately clear why, you can see the outcome of such a problematic goal on the page that asks, “Is this a campaign to get me to go to church?” Their answer is, “No. He Gets Us simply invites all to consider the story of a man who created a radical love movement that continues to impact the world thousands of years later. Many churches focus on Jesus’ experiences, but you don’t have to go to church or even believe in Christianity to find value in them. Whether you consider yourself a Christian, a believer in another faith, a spiritual explorer, or not religious or spiritual in any way, we invite you to hear about Jesus and be inspired by his example.”

Jesus is God of the universe and the exclusive path to salvation (John 14:6). He’s not just a nice guy relevant for “inspiring” people regardless of whatever errant worldview they happen to hold.

Some people reading this may try to be charitable in suggesting that if the campaign were more explicitly about Jesus’s divinity and the need for salvation up front, not as many would get interested in learning more. In other words, maybe the campaign funnels people to places that can deepen and clarify their understanding of Jesus. If that were the case, it would be a horrible, misleading approach. Every marketer knows that the goal is to generate accurate awareness. He Gets Us presents not just an incomplete Jesus, but the wrong one.

Even so, let’s look at where the campaign eventually takes people.

7. The next steps offered by He Gets Us could lead someone far away from truth rather than toward it.

When people become interested in learning more about Jesus, they’re directed to a “Connect” page.

Hundreds of churches have signed up to respond to people who fill out that connect form. Clearly, an important question is where those people are directed. However, there is no theological criteria or statement of faith that churches must adhere to in order to take part. The president of the marketing agency says, [vi]“We hope that all churches that are aligned with the He Gets Us campaign will participate…This includes multiple denominational and nondenominational church affiliations, Catholic and Protestant, churches of various sizes, ethnicities, languages, and geography.”

As I explain in Faithfully Different (and discuss with Dr. George Barna in my recent podcast[vii]), 65% of Americans identify as Christian while only about 6% have a worldview consistent with what the Bible teaches. Dr. Barna’s research has also shown that 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.

Yes, Jesus was fully human, but He was also fully God. When you remove half the picture of His identity (as this campaign does), you give people the understanding they want but not the fuller understanding they need. Because of this, He Gets Us has the potential to actually harm the public understanding of Jesus. People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.

Footnotes

[i] https://hegetsus.com/en

[ii] https://churchleaders.com/news/435958-he-gets-us-campaign-jon-lee-rns.html

[iii] https://hegetsus.com/en/jesus-invited-everyone-to-sit-at-his-table

[iv] https://www.amazon.com/Faithfully-Different-Regaining-Biblical-Clarity/dp/0736984291

[v] https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/march/he-gets-us-ad-campaign-branding-jesus-church-marketing.html

[vi] https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/march/he-gets-us-ad-campaign-branding-jesus-church-marketing.html

[vii] https://natashacrain.com/what-is-a-biblical-worldview-with-george-barna/

5 STEPS TO LIVING A JOY FILLED LIFE

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

In a recent conversation with a Christian friend, he shared how several unexpected killjoys had sprung up in his life and dragged him down to a dark place. Since then, my friend has struggled to find joy in his life.

What about you? Are you finding it hard to be joyful in life?

The reality is, we could all use more joy in our lives. Which leads me to share with you the first of five steps to living a more joyful life.

The first step is to seek joy from God.

Joy is a gift from God. It doesn’t come from people or objects in the world. You might get temporary relief or happiness. But the joy the Bible speaks of is so much more. As we read in the Bible, joy has to do with a deep state of gladness, cheer, and contentment. In the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “joy” is “closely related to gladness and happiness, although joy is more a state of being than an emotion; a result of choice.”

David declared that it’s in the presence of God that there is “fullness of joy” (Ps. 16:11). In Nehemiah 8:10, we read that we find strength in “the joy of the Lord.” In Galatians 5:22, Paul lists “joy” as a byproduct of the Holy Spirit.

If you want more joy in life—look no further. Look to God.

The second step is to acknowledge and cherish the eternal blessings you have as a child of God:

You are forgiven and have peace in Christ– “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near” (Ephesians 2:13-17).
You are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit – “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14).
You have a living hope in Christ – “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:3-5).

The third step is bringing balance into your life.

You’ve heard the saying, don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s next to impossible to appreciate the joy you have as a Christian if you live a hurried-up life filled with stress. In the book of Philippians, Paul writes, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (4:6-7).

We can’t overlook that Paul wrote the words “don’t be anxious” while in prison. Despite the various trials and the ups and downs, Paul still found joy amid some of his darkest hours. That, my friend, is joy!

It would be great that every time you feel worried or anxious, you simply pray for it to go away, and just like that, it’s gone! But, as you very well know, that’s not reality. We may not like it, but it’s in hardships and feeling depressed that God’s joy is made so much more real to us.

So, offer up prayers of thanksgiving to help eliminate any worry or stress that might be preventing you from living a life of joy.

The fourth step involves setting boundaries with certain people who suck the joy out of you.

Setting boundaries is a hard thing to implement for anyone. Starting with the fact that no one likes confrontation. And secondly, most of the “joy suckers” in our lives are people we have no choice but to be around. They can be a family member—a co-worker.

So, the obvious thing is not to overreact and pull away from everybody. What you want to do is assess your relationships and determine who is the most self-centered, critical, argumentative, and who tends to push your buttons. In a nutshell, who leaves you feeling drained and discouraged most of the time?

Once you’ve realized who the “joy suckers” are, the next challenge is to draw the necessary boundaries to protect you from allowing this person to steal your joy. As mentioned in step one, joy is a choice. You may not always have a choice who you are around. But you do have a choice how you interact with them and they with you. So, make sure you bathe your relationships in prayer and seek wise counsel before setting certain boundaries.

The fifth step is to enjoy life today!

It’s easy to take for granted what we have in our lives. I’ll admit that when I get impatient with people or with work-related stuff, I can miss out on enjoying life. Just the other night, I told my wife how I needed not to lose sight of enjoying the simple moments in life. Whether it be throwing the football with one of my kids or sipping a cup of coffee with a friend. I need to be more sensitive and aware of counting my blessings every day.

How about you? What are some blessings you’ve received from God that you need to appreciate more?

As you seek to implement these five steps to achieving a more joyful life, seek to add the prayer from Paul below to enrich your motivation.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” Romans 15:13

These Viral Pro-Choice Memes Miss the Point and Fail the Test of Logic

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

With the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion potentially pointing to Roe v. Wade being overturned, social media is on fire with pro-choice advocates sharing memes intended to portray abortion “rights” as necessary, important, and even morally good.

For those of us who believe intentionally killing preborn human beings is murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life), it’s absolutely heartbreaking to see so many people passionately advocating for the right to commit such an act. In response, many Christians have taken to private social media groups to share examples of pro-choice memes and discuss how best to respond.

While it’s not necessary to respond to every post you come across (there aren’t enough hours in the day!), I’m heartened to see so many Christians wanting to address what they’re seeing. That said, I’ve noticed that many people’s responses are missing the key point of the debate as much as the memes themselves are.

As such, I wanted to write this article to respond to several viral pro-choice memes and show how to maintain focus on the core issue without getting pulled into irrelevant other subjects. But first, a critical distinction must be understood.

Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings

Imagine that you come across someone posting the following on social media: “I’m an atheist. I do not believe anything exists beyond the natural world, and therefore I do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Nothing is morally right or wrong, so I’m pro-choice because I believe there’s nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn baby.”

In this case, the pro-choice advocate is merely being consistent within their own naturalistic worldview. They believe morality is only a matter of opinion, given their view of the nature of the universe. If a Christian is pro-life as a logical outworking of their biblical worldview and an atheist is pro-choice as a logical outworking of their naturalistic worldview, the ensuing conversation isn’t so much about abortion as it is about their respective underlying worldview assumptions.

Worldview-level discussions about the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the corresponding rights (or lack of rights) held by preborn humans certainly transpire in some circles. And these worldview-level questions are ultimately what the debate comes down to.

But this is rarely the level of conversation floating to the top of social media.

In fact, I’ve seen virtually no pro-choice social media posts addressing these questions in popular discourse. Rather, emotion-driven memes carry the day—memes that are nearly always logically fallacious red herrings. In other words, they distract from the real issue with points completely irrelevant to the core (worldview) question at hand:

Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

That’s it. That’s what the debate comes down to.

For clarity, the logic behind the answer for Christians with a biblical worldview is as follows:

It’s morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

With this in mind, let’s look at brief responses to eight of the most popular pro-choice memes circulating right now to see how to highlight the red herring and point back to the real issue. As we’ll see, they all fail to address the core question: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).

Social media example:

If intentionally killing a preborn baby is morally wrong, whatever a person does or does not do to support a child and/or their parents does not change the morality of the action itself.

Virtually everyone, for example, would agree that rape is morally wrong. If a person opposed to rape does absolutely nothing for rape victims, we still acknowledge that their opposition to rape is the morally correct position to hold. Logically speaking, the morality of an action must be evaluated on its own basis. The core question remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

[Avoid the trap: Don’t try to prove your motivations in response to the wording “if it was about babies…” If someone wants to question your motivations, they’re unlikely to be convinced otherwise by your words. The morality of abortion has nothing to do with any individual’s motivation for holding a given position. Also, don’t start breaking down each good we should supposedly provide (formula, diapers, etc.) to show why it’s unnecessary, unfeasible, or already sufficiently provided. All you’re doing is playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.

Social media example:

This is logically quite similar to the first meme, but with a twist that often confuses people: equivocation on the term “pro-life” (equivocation is the use of ambiguous language—typically using the same word with two different meanings).

Pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate, means that a person is opposed to abortion. Here the writer wants to make the political point that if you really care about “life,” you’ll agree with a bundle of other positions (ones they assume to be the best life-sustaining positions). But Roe v. Wade is not about a bundle of issues related to human life. This is a question of one specific human life issue.

Again, intentionally killing preborn babies is either morally wrong or it’s not. Whether someone takes a morally right or wrong position on any other issue is irrelevant to whether they’ve taken a morally right or wrong position on abortion.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t start trying to defend that you really are pro “all life,” but that being pro “all life” doesn’t translate into supporting each of the particular positions listed. If you start trying to prove your pro “all life” credentials by getting into detailed discussions on all these other issues, you’re simply playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.

Social media example:

The logic here is similar to that of the first two memes, but I wanted to include it because this one is especially popular, and it has a slightly different framing: It’s a “Christian” pastor presumably chastising fellow Christians for only caring about who is easiest to advocate for. Non-Christians of course like this because the accusation is coming from one of “our own.”

But regardless of who it’s coming from and regardless of how relatively easy or uneasy it is to advocate for any particular group, the morality of actions against that group remains the same.

That’s it. Even if advocating for the preborn were the easiest thing on earth relative to advocating for other groups, it doesn’t change whether intentionally killing those babies is morally wrong or not. If we’re talking about abortion laws, that’s the question that matters.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get caught up in showing that this pastor is progressive and doesn’t hold a biblical view. That’s true, but the source of the comment is irrelevant. Also avoid debating how easy or uneasy it is to advocate for different groups—as I’ve shown here, that too is irrelevant.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.

Social media example:

The basic logic here is that it’s better to kill a preborn human than to allow that human to be born into bad circumstances, ranging from poverty to abuse. But many humans live in and always have lived in bad—often terrible—circumstances regardless of whether their parents wanted them. The pro-choice advocate would almost certainly not say that we should kill every human who lives in or will live in a set of circumstances deemed to be insufficiently pleasant. Imagine the outrage if our society started pulling toddlers out of the homes of poor families to kill them! The only difference between that scenario and the one in the meme is that the child is already born.

Again, it’s either morally wrong or it’s not to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Whether a given human’s parents want to or are able to raise that human according to certain standards has nothing to do with whether killing them is right or wrong. We wouldn’t apply that logic to humans who are already born; there’s no logical reason to apply it before birth either.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t enter into debate about how good a child’s life can be even in bad circumstances. The morality of abortion doesn’t depend on how good or bad a child’s life turns out to be. That’s another red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

This idea comes in many different meme forms, but the basic logic is that men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body because men can’t get pregnant. (As an aside, I’m not sure how long this argument can go unchecked today given that trans activists claim trans men–biological women–can be pregnant. Will feminists declare that there really are differences between trans men and biological men and allow trans men alone to speak, given their reproductive capabilities? Only time will tell.)

Once again, this avoids the question of the morality of abortion with an emotional red herring. Our society has laws against murder because we’ve collectively agreed that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; our laws unashamedly restrain the freedom of citizens to kill one another. It’s no more “controlling,” therefore, to have restrictions on what would-be murderers do with their bodies to kill others than it is to have restrictions on what pregnant women do with their bodies to kill others. The only relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, and the morality of an action doesn’t depend on the gender of who makes the law. (As many people have pointed out, it was an all-male Supreme Court that passed Roe v. Wade in the first place, so by this logic, pro-choice people should reject that court decision as well.)

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get distracted by the claim that “conservative Christianity” is about controlling bodies. That’s just a jab at Christians. Focus on the “my body, my choice” logic, which quickly fails for the above reasons.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

The logic here is identical to that of the last meme except it takes out the gender-specific language. Rather than “men have no right to tell women what to do with their body,” it’s “no one has a right to tell women what to do with their body.” Once again, we have all kinds of laws in society that restrict the use of one’s body to intentionally hurt or kill other humans. Abortion laws are not unique in telling someone what they can or can’t do with their body when it comes to other human lives.

The relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, not whether society is in a place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. We already do that in all kinds of ways.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.

Social media example:

I’m always shocked that someone would make this argument, but it always comes up, so let’s look at the logic: We should keep the intentional killing of preborn human beings legal because if we don’t, certain racial and economic groups will be better able to find illegal ways to kill babies than others. In other words, poor people and people of color won’t have equal opportunity to kill.

We simply do not apply this kind of thinking in other cases—we don’t make actions legal because some groups of people are better able to skirt the law! If we did that, we’d probably have no laws at all. As a society, we work to provide equal opportunity for good not for bad.

The question, therefore, remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being? If it is, there’s no need to give people equal opportunity to do what’s wrong.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t go down the rabbit hole of discussing which groups of people do or do not need abortion “access”—no one needs access to a moral wrong.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.

Social media example (this is a copy and paste post that is viral around Facebook):

I’m not pro-murdering babies.

I’m pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.

I’m pro-Christina who doesn’t want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.

I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child.

I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I’m pro-life.

Their lives.

Women’s lives.

You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

I’ve saved this one for last because it’s like a capstone example for this article. I’ve seen so many Christians ask how to respond to this post, presumably because it looks so overwhelming. There are a dozen different types of cases given here, and the intent is clearly to confront the reader with too much to respond to. The writer wants to show that there are just too many difficult circumstances leading to a woman’s desire for abortion, so we shouldn’t make blanket restrictions; too many bad things exist that make abortion access necessary.

While the logical problems could be pointed out with each individual case (and I’ve seen people do that well), I think this is more simply and effectively dealt with by sticking with the high level logic the post is using: If difficult circumstances result in or from a human life being created, a woman needs the right to kill that preborn baby. To see the logical problem, apply that thinking to a human being already born…if difficult circumstances lead to one human wanting to kill another human, should we legalize that murder due to their difficult circumstances? As with an earlier meme, we don’t apply that logic in such cases. There’s no reason to apply it to the preborn either.

As one other logic point, to say that you’re not “pro-murdering babies” but are pro-women who want to be able to is a fallacy called distinction without difference. In other words, if you’re for women being able to kill a preborn baby, you’re “pro-(the ability to) murder babies.” Drawing a cursory distinction via word choice does not change the central issue of whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being.

[Avoid the trap: There are certainly nuances to some of the cases listed here that could warrant further points. For example, in the case of Vanessa, the baby has already died; that’s not about abortion at all. However, most people posting this aren’t looking to get into conversation about the details. Their whole point is that there are too many considerations that warrant conversation, so we should leave the choice to women. In general, I’d recommend avoiding the trap of replying to each case and stick with the overall points of logic I described here.]

Christians are called to speak truth, but sometimes before we can even speak truth about the sanctity of life, we need to help people see the flawed logic of popular claims. Once we sweep away logical errors so we can clearly see the core question (Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?), we of course need to be prepared to make the case for life. For help in doing so, I highly recommend Scott Klusendorf’s book The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.

How to Contextualize

Get Out of Your Echo Chamber

Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is At Hand

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Underdeveloped Brains

Underdeveloped Faith

Underdeveloped Values

Endnotes

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Religious Pluralism is Self-Defeating

The Religions Contradict Each Other

Pluralism Defies Logic

Pluralism Makes Exclusive Claims Too

Pluralism Ignores Scientific and Historical Facts

Scientific Evidence

Historical Evidence

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus Is the Only Way?

Footnotes

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?

Feelings Aren’t All Bad

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

Reason Number One: They Have Personal Relationship with Jesus

Reason Number Two: They Desire to Learn the Bible

Reason Number Three: They were Raised by Parents Who Value Church

Reason Number Four: They Have Community In Their Church

Reason Number Five: They Love to Serve

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is a Yoke Anyways?

What is the Context?

But isn’t it more loving to share their yoke?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Scripture Twisting

Changing the Subject

Critiquing People They’ve Never Met

Eisegesis -vs- Exegesis

Creeping on the Sheep

When Your Guard is Down

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. The fact that Jesus “gets us,” stripped from the context of His identity, is meaningless.

2. Jesus is presented as an example, not a Savior.

3. The campaign reinforces the problematic idea that Jesus’s followers have Jesus all wrong.

4. The campaign reinforces what culture wants to believe about Jesus while leaving out what culture doesn’t want to believe.

5. The campaign characterizes the so-called culture war in terms of secular social justice rather than underlying worldview differences.

6. The campaign’s stated goal is about inspiration, not a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

7. The next steps offered by He Gets Us could lead someone far away from truth rather than toward it.

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The first step is to seek joy from God.

The second step is to acknowledge and cherish the eternal blessings you have as a child of God:

The third step is bringing balance into your life.

The fourth step involves setting boundaries with certain people who suck the joy out of you.

The fifth step is to enjoy life today!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?**