Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Are Christians the New Extremists? Yes, and That’s Okay

My blog and podcast have been quiet since April because I was finishing writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.

Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are now a minority in America and how the secular worldview that surrounds us is putting significant pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians more clearly understand the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both for the strength of our own faith and for our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m really excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be posting pre-order details here in the next few weeks.

In reading that, you might wonder if Christians really are a “minority” in America. I discuss this at length in my first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask questions about specific beliefs and behaviors, only about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (holding basic beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and exhibiting corresponding behaviors). Furthermore, researchers have found that not only are those with a biblical worldview now a small minority in America, they’re a small minority within the church.

Now, there are plenty of minority groups that people don’t care much about. I’m sure there are only a handful of people, for example, who eat pickles every morning for breakfast. No one cares. But it’s becoming clear to Christians with a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence…because it hates all we represent.

In a very real sense, we’re increasingly being seen as a small and extreme faction of society.

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Read or watch anything in mainstream media that mentions “conservative Christians” and you’ll immediately know from the tone that the term isn’t being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s now a pejorative that comes with a knowing nod and eye roll among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I’m not necessarily talking about conservative in a political sense; in secular usage, “conservative” is a blanket label to reference Christians who disagree with mainstream secular views. There’s often a correlation with politics, but it’s not exclusive to that.)

The implication is that we’re those people—the hold-outs who won’t get on board with where the rest of society wants to go. We’re seen as an impediment to culturally-defined progress because of how different our views are relative to today’s mainstream secularism.

The result is that secularists now see us with various degrees of indignation. As strange as it sounds to many Christians, we’re the new extremists—a minority group whose views are seen as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” view of secular culture and 2) concerning to the rest of society.

When you sense that this is how culture sees us, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the dominant religious influence in America for the last 400 years, but now it’s extreme (and concerning) to believe that the Bible is God’s Word?

While there’s no reason to agree with secularists that our views are concerning, there are many reasons to agree that our worldview is extremely different relative to the dominant secular worldview culture now holds. We’re certainly “extremists” in that sense—and should gladly embrace the fact if we fully understand the nature of a biblical worldview.

More specifically, we’re extreme in three major ways.

First, we’re extreme in our source of authority

The most foundational difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is our source of authority. Every person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority for what they believe to be true about the world and how they should function within it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He’s revealed those truths in the Bible.

In secularism, a person’s source of authority is the self. Secularism isn’t what you get when you simply subtract so-called religious beliefs from a person’s worldview. When you take away the authority of God, you aren’t left with no authority—you’re left with the authority of you.

This difference in authority is at the root of almost every difference between a biblical and secular worldview.

When the vast majority of people’s authority for truth is themselves, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians are going to come to some very different conclusions about the nature of reality than culture. Even uttering the words “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme relative to today’s average view that the individual reigns supreme.

And for those who assume the Bible is merely a written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremity is concerning. How can Christians be compelled to follow new societal directions if they don’t view truth as something subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of changing popular consensus. But Christians who believe they have un unchanging authority for all time? That’s an infuriating barrier that secularists resent.

Second, we’re extreme in our understanding of morality.

It follows from the first point that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to be at great odds with secularists in matters of morality.

For those whose authority is God and who believe He’s revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, what the Bible says is right or wrong is going to be the final word…regardless of what we think, regardless of what any other individual thinks, and regardless of what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what a stubborn view!

When your authority is yourself, there’s no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is their own God. What’s right or wrong isn’t a matter of what someone else has said—God or not—it’s a matter of what you’ve said.

But wait! Wouldn’t that mean that secularists should accept the Christian view of morality as just one more valid view?

Absolutely.

But they don’t. And this is where secularists fail to live consistently within their own worldview rooted in the authority of the self.

If they were consistent, they’d say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian view is just as valid as anyone else’s since every individual is their own authority and there’s no objective basis for claiming that anything is right or wrong for all people. But a bunch of us have (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue, and we want to try to convince you to change your opinion! Yet even if you don’t change your mind, that’s OK, since everyone’s view is equally valid anyway. Have a great day.”

Instead, they’re saying this: “The (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue is the objectively right view for all people, and if you disagree, you’re wrong…and evil.”

Without an objective basis for morality from a higher-than-human moral lawgiver, the closest thing secularists can have as a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus. That’s why it’s so important for secular culture to continually push their views of morality through every conceivable channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and more. The more people get on board with any given view of morality, the more the popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new supposed standard for what’s right.

But once again, Christians with a biblical worldview aren’t subject to that shift. No matter how prevalent any new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God Himself has said, the popular consensus won’t become our new standard. And that “extreme” viewpoint relative to average culture is mind-numbingly frustrating to nonbelievers.

Third, we’re extreme in believing that judgment can be objectively valid.

This point follows from both of the prior points. Because Christians look to God and His word as the source of authority for our lives, and because views of morality are an outworking of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—not just a matter of opinion.

In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of a secular worldview this way: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the ability or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). From the worldview perspective that the authority is the self, it’s absurd and insulting for someone else to come along, look at a person’s life journey, and claim to know better than they do how they should or shouldn’t be living.

But that assumes there’s no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source for that information.

From a biblical worldview perspective, God has provided that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what’s true about reality, it’s not absurd or insulting to share what He’s said—it’s literally the only reasonable thing to do given that the God who created everything would assuredly know more than any human.

Jesus never said that the world would understand us. To a large degree, secular culture’s views here are to be expected. What concerns me far more is when Christians don’t understand how extremely different a biblical worldview should be from a secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extreme relative to average society understand this more than self-professed Christians who see only marginal differences.

When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we really are “extremists” in today’s culture…and embrace it. Not only is it okay to be extreme in this way, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to.

The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Jason Jimenez

All this talk about more equity in our institutions seems like a good thing, right?

Not so fast.

On the surface, equity seems to be fair, just, and impartial. But upon further investigation, you find that the outcome of equity is anything but fair, just, and impartial.

There are undoubtedly those within the debate over diversity, inclusivity, and equity who genuinely try to reduce discrimination and attempt to unite people of different backgrounds. That’s a good thing. But let’s not be fooled into believing that we must embrace the Left’s dangerous views of equity hook line and sinker.

To prevent you from believing the secular lies of equity, I’ve put together three areas that expose the faulty thinking and the dangerous results that come with this unchecked justice referred to as “equitable treatment.”

The Unequal Treatments of Equity

Equality, as we’ve known it to mean, is treating everyone the same. But that’s no longer the case. Instead, the Left has hijacked equality by socially engineering it into something predicated on equal outcomes (i.e., equity), not based on equal opportunity.

The Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), distinctively communicated the difference between equality and equity by writing, “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, a new form of servitude.”

The idea of a “new form of servitude” is to mistreat the fortunate to treat the less fortunate fairly. But how is that just and fair? If equity is about the “systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals,” how is the unequal distribution of benefits to low-income individuals considered equitable? This equitable posture is the classic “fair share” philosophy that has its roots in socialism.

Just because inequities exist doesn’t give the government or some social justice system the right to step in and attempt to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same place. That, my friends, is not equality, nor is it following the impartial mandates of the law.

The Injustice of Equity

In his book, Prosperity and Poverty, Calvin Beisner proves this point, “The only way to arrive at equal fruits is to equalize behavior, and that requires robbing men of liberty, making them slaves.”

The truth is equity (according to the Left) doesn’t promote fairness, equal opportunities, or equal outcomes. As a matter of fact, it snubs individuality, stifles creativity, cheapens competition, steals from hard earning workers, lowers the standards of achievement, and actually advances partiality—and often, promotes racism.

On his blog, Neal Hardin writes, “In order for total uniformity of results to be achieved, there would have to be a uniformity of our characteristics and desires. In other words, true equality of outcome could only result if there were no meaningful differences among human beings or the choices we would make, which seems to go completely contrary to the diversity which God intended in creation. Clearly, on some level, God created us with these diverse characteristics and desires expecting different outcomes.”

To ignore each person’s uniqueness, giftedness and not to embrace diversity is in itself an injustice that (if left unchecked) leads to more discrimination and oppression.

The Inconsistencies of Equity

“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the protest group declared in a tweet. The tweet went on to say, “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation (always have. And always will be).”

But here’s the thing. If BLM is for equity, then why don’t they stand with Israel?

Or how about female athletes (who have XX chromosomes) that are losing to transgender athletes (who have XY chromosomes)? How is that equitable treatment? From the start, women athletes are being placed at a disadvantage and have no real chance to arrive at an equal outcome. Where’s the equity in that?

What about Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago? In the spirit of equity, she, a black woman, only gave interviews to black and brown journalists in celebration of her two years in office. Say what? How is that being fair while discriminating against white journalists? Not to mention is that honest journalism?

Here’s the bottom line. No one denies there are disparities among people. We come from different backgrounds, ethnic groups, families, etc. But just because we are created equal doesn’t mean we are all created the same. We are not all the same. And it is feasibly impossible to make everyone end up at the same place.

Individual freedom doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. It does, however, provide equal opportunity for people to succeed in life. Our nation was founded on the solid conviction that equality of humanity retains and sustains the essence of human rights in a civil society. That’s the kind of equity Christians should support and defend.

However, when the culture measures human rights based on color, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, that culture will not survive. The more America moves further away from God and his truth, the deeper our nation will slip into spiritual corruption and generate more inequalities and inequities within society.

As Christians, we are to honor the fact that each human is made in the image of God. We need to remember that God has made each of us diverse in color, ethnicity, and personality and learn to appreciate the uniqueness and difference in each of us.

What Does the Common Practice Of Withholding Sex Reveal About Women?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Wintery Knight

Dennis Prager features a lot of discussions about male-female relationships on his show, particularly during the male-female hour. I think this is one of the parts of his show that I really like best because he knows what he is talking about.

He did a two-part series a while back on 1) male sexuality and 2) what women should do about it within a marriage.

Part 1 is here.

Excerpt:

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife’s refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men’s natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman’s nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways…

He then explains the 5 ways that women respond to this.

Here’s one:

You have to be kidding. That certainly isn’t my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.

And this is the common mistake that some feminist women make because they think that men are just hairy women with no feelings and desires of their own that are distincly theirs. In the past, all women understood how men are different than women, but today almost no younger feminist women do. In fact, many younger women today struggle with the idea that there is anything different about men that they need to learn. The only thing that they need to know is what makes women happy, and that it is everyone else’s job to make women happy so that women can then behave nicely (whatever that means). Younger feminist women today often think that they only need to be in touch with their own feelings – and that men and children simply have to get used to the idea that they have no right to make any demands on a woman – she has no moral obligations in a marriage.

Here’s another from the list:

You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldn’t expect sex when I’m not in the mood.

I think this whole problem of feminist women not understanding men, and of demeaning male feelings and values, is very serious. In my opinion, there is a whole lot of work that needs to be done by feminism-influenced women in order to fix this problem. The best place to learn about this is in Dr. Laura’s book “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”. It’s like an application form for a serious relationship. Sex is one thing, but a serious man should insist that a woman take him seriously – and take marriage and children seriously. Pre-marital sex, having fun, getting drunk, and going out, etc. are not the right foundation for a relationship that is defined by the need for mutual self-sacrifice. There is no such thing as a “feminist” marriage – marriage is not about selfishness and playing the victim.

I actually had a conversation with a Christian woman once who said that women should not be obligated to do things that they didn’t feel like doing. I asked her if men were obligated to go to work when they didn’t feel like going. She said yes, and acted as though I were crazy for asking. I just laughed, because she didn’t even see the inconsistency. Many young feminist women today just don’t understand men, and they don’t want to understand them. They just want what they want and in the quickest way possible. Understand the needs of men and children, or how feminist-inspired laws discourage men from committing to marriage and parenting, are of no interest at all.

Part 2 is here.

Excerpt:

Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.

He then explains the eight reasons.

Here’s one of them:

Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks — and she has every reason to seek it — it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.

This makes the point that many young feminist women today do not really understand that they are, in a sense, capable of changing their husband’s conduct by the way they act themselves. I think that younger feminist women seem to think that their role in the relationship is to sort of do nothing and wait for the man to serve them. But relationships take work, and they take work from both participants.

At the end of the article, Prager makes a general point about women that I think needs to be emphasized over and over and over:

That solution is for a wife who loves her husband — if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem — to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.

I think that is an excellent question to ask a woman. What does it mean to love a man? I was forwarded one amazing response from a Calvinist woman recently in which she explained several things that she wanted to do to meet a particular man’s needs and make his life easier, and what she was prepared to do now in order to show him that she really could do handle the role. I think that she said these things out of sympathy and understanding of that man, and that was very encouraging.

But I think that kind of seriousness about taking of someone else as they really are, self-sacrificially, is rare. And it makes me wonder what people think that marriage is when they get into the church and make vows that, ostensibly, will require self-sacrifice. What do women think that marriage is? What is the goal of it? What makes a marriage successful? Why do women think that men marry? What do men get out of marriage? What are the woman’s responsibilities to the man in a marriage? I think these are questions that men should ask women. And the should not be satisfied with glib answers. Men should demand that books be read, that essays be written, that skills be developed, and that the woman’s life experiences show that she has understood what will be expected from her and why.

I think that it’s a good idea for men to try to get married, but they should be careful to make sure that the woman they choose is sensitive to their needs, just as men ought to be sensitive to the needs of women.

An Evaluation of “Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking”

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Elliott Crozat

Introduction

Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking is an engaging article on an issue often confined to academic journals.[1] I am grateful for the report, mainly because of Nobis’ and Dudley’s emphasis on personhood and because I agree with them on two significant points. First, our society needs a careful and respectful examination of challenging topics rather than sloganeering and ad hominem. As Schopenhauer put it, “one wants reasons and not empty phrases or abuse.”[2] Second, at the popular level, folks on both sides of the debate have largely ignored the relevance of moral reasoning.

Four-Fold Evaluation

Notwithstanding my gratitude, the article has weaknesses. What follows is a brief evaluation of the authors’ argument, not an attempt to defend the pro-life position.

Firstly, the tone strikes me as too quick and sure. I will return to this point, but for now, I note that generally, philosophers are less sure about solutions to philosophical problems than the authors seem to be about their position on abortion. However, I grant that a tone of crisp certainty is more acceptable in popular contexts than in academia.

Secondly, the article begins in a questionable manner: “Abortion rights are under attack… The Supreme Court now has a majority of justices who identify as “pro-life,” and will surely be more receptive to these attacks on abortion rights than previous courts have been.” Note that the authors are not clear about whether they are referring to moral or legal rights. Either way, a problem arises. If the former, they are begging the question at the start since it is debatable whether persons have the moral right to perform an abortion. If the latter, then “attack” is a question-begging epithet. After all, if a legal right is morally unacceptable, it is arguably permissible to repeal that right. Labeling such efforts with the emotionally-laden “attack” presupposes that the legal right in question is ethically acceptable.

Thirdly, the authors provide two analogies to argue that abortion is morally permissible. In each, they presuppose the like-cases principle: like cases should be treated alike unless there is a morally relevant reason to treat them differently. Good start: this is a venerable moral principle going back at least to Aristotle. Nevertheless, each analogy fails because of at least one morally significant difference.

The first comparison is between abortion and organ donation. This comparison fails in two crucial respects: (i) in typical cases of organ donation, the donor consents to undergo the process, and (ii) the process occurs after the donor is brain-dead. It hardly needs to be stated that in typical cases of abortion, the fetus does not consent and is not brain-dead.

The second analogy concerns abortion and the treatment of anencephalic infants. Here, the authors miss the difference between (a) actively killing and (b) passively allowing to die. This distinction is pivotal in the euthanasia debate and proves similarly important here. Abortion is the active killing of a fetus that would otherwise naturally continue to live and develop. However, in cases of anencephalic infants such as those noted by the authors, the infant is allowed to die, supported by palliative care.

Given these analogies, the authors construct something like the following argument:

Abortion is relevantly similar to organ donation and anencephalic death.
Cases of organ donation and anencephalic death are morally permissible.
Like cases should be treated alike.
Therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

The argument is an interesting application of the like-cases principle. However, since the analogies fail, the authors’ analogical reasoning is unconvincing.

Fourthly, the authors claim that fetuses during the first 12 weeks are not conscious. Perhaps they are correct, but they cannot be objectively certain. As many philosophers of mind have indicated, consciousness is a hard problem. A good way to discover if a being is conscious is to determine if it has qualia (i.e., subjective states of experience). One cannot accomplish this task with a brain scan. Hence, a reasonable concern arises that we cannot achieve certainty concerning whether a fetus has qualia. And since we lack such certainty, we should act with the utmost caution, given the moral seriousness of taking human life. The authors do not address this point.[3] Instead, they present what might strike the reader as an unjustified sense of certainty about the moral permissibility of killing fetuses during the first 12 weeks.

Moreover, the authors write that fetuses “lack consciousness-enabling brains.” But they are not lucid about what “consciousness-enabling brain” means, leaving the reader to ponder the matter. Now, there is evidence that the senses of taste and touch begin to develop around Week 8. According to Ventura and Worobey, the olfactory and gustatory systems also start to form during this period. These systems and their connections to the brain enable the fetus to develop tastes and preferences for specific flavors.[4] Touch, taste, and smell are sensations, which are states of consciousness. Preferences and other desires are also conscious states. Thus, the physical resources which support consciousness begin to develop before Week 12. Do these mechanisms enable any degree of consciousness during this period? I suggest that we do not know the answer to this question and that our ignorance indicates that we should tread carefully.

Furthermore, one is within one’s epistemic rights to doubt the authors’ claim that the present bearing of consciousness is necessary to possess the moral right to life. For example, the adult who temporarily loses consciousness because of, say, dehydration does not thereby lose this right. Instead, one might agree with Marquis that the primary concern at hand is that the fetus has a future like ours.[5] In other words, the human fetus, child, and adult share a comparable future, namely, one in which a conscious agent naturally possesses intrinsically valuable experiences. It is morally wrong to deprive a child or an adult of future experiences. Given the like-cases principle, abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of such experiences.

Conclusion

There are other concerns with the article, such as an apparent mishandling of important points about interests. But I want to end amicably. Nobis and Dudley close by stating that one should not wait to engage in moral philosophy until forced to because of a rescinded legal privilege. I wholly agree.

[1] Salon published the article on April 11, 2021. See https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/

[2] “On Suicide,” in Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R. J. Hollingdale, (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 78.

[3] They need not agree with it. But they should recognize it.

[4] “Early Influences on the Development of Food Preferences,” in Current Biology, Volume 23, Issue 9, May 2013. Moreover, Andreas Keller argues that olfaction is the paradigm sensation. See Philosophy of Olfactory Perception, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

[5] See “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Journal of Philosophy 86, 4 (April 1989): 183–202.

Why Do Some Christians Say “All Sins Are Equally Bad” And “Everyone Is Equally Guilty”?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Wintery Knight

We were having a discussion about whether the Bible teaches that sex before marriage is morally wrong, and someone said “impure thoughts counts as adultery… there isn’t a virgin among us.”

Regarding her point that lust is equal to adultery, and so no one is really a virgin, here’s Ligonier Ministries:

In demonstrating that the seventh commandment was given also to prohibit lust, Jesus is not somehow saying that an unconsummated lustful intent is sinful to the same degree as an actual extramarital affair (though both sins merit punishment). The latter is a more blatant violation of the statute against adultery, and it has greater consequences in the form of divorce and the loss of one’s reputation as a trustworthy person.

Any serious student of the Bible is aware of Jesus’ tendency to exaggerate/use hyperbole.

Also, 1 Corinthians 7 says that wives are not supposed to make a habit of denying their husbands sex. Sex withholding is more of an epidemic today than pornography, and it should also be on the adultery spectrum. It isn’t as bad as adultery, but it definitely breaks the marital covenant.

So why would someone say that lust is the same as adultery and that there is no such thing as a virgin?

Dr. Michael Krueger recently blogged about this “all sins are equal” view.

Krueger says this:

First, to say all sins are the same is to confuse the effect of sin with the heinousness of sin. While all sins are equal in their effect (they separate us from God), they are not all equally heinous.

Second, the Bible differentiates between sins. Some sins are more severe in terms of impact (1 Cor 6:18), in terms of culpability (Rom 1:21-32), and in terms of the judgment warranted (2 Pet 2:17; Mark 9:42; James 3:1).

Krueger explains the motivation behind the slogans:

[S]ome Christians… use this phrase as way to “flatten out” all sins so that they are not distinguishable from each other. Or, to put it another way, this phrase is used to portray all human beings as precisely the same. If all sins are equal, and all people sin, then no one is more holy than anyone else.

In a world fascinated with “equality,” this usage of the phrase is particularly attractive to folks. It allows everyone to be lumped together into a single undifferentiated mass.

Such a move is also useful as a way to prevent particular behaviors from being condemned. If all sins are equal, and everyone is a sinner, then you are not allowed to highlight any particular sin (or sinner).

Needless to say, this usage of the phrase has featured largely in the recent cultural debates over issues like homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, some Christians reluctantly concede. But, they argue, all sins are equal in God’s sight and therefore it is no different than anything else. Therefore, Christians ought to stop talking about homosexuality unless they are also willing to talk about impatience, anger, gluttony, and so on.

Krueger also posted this fascinating follow-up post, where he looks at how the phrase is being used by people on Twitter.

Look at these tweets:

All sins are equal. People tend to forget that. There is no bigger or smaller sin. Being gay and lying, very equal.
all sins are equal in God’s eyes. whatever you’re doing, is no better than what someone else is doing.
If you have sex before marriage please don’t come on social media preaching about the wrongs of homosexuality. All sins are equal
Need people to realize that all sins are equal… don’t try to look down on me or question my faith just cuz you sin differently than I do.
Don’t understand why you’re so quick to judge me, when all sins are equal. So much for family..
if you think being gay is a sin, let me ask you something, have you not done anything wrong in your life? all sins are equal. we’re sinners
Nope no difference at all. All sins are equal no matter what you’re running for. The bible says do not judge lest ye be judged
A huge problem I have with religion is the notion that all sins are equal. Like pre-marital sex and murder are the same amount t of bad.
people do bad things because they believe that all sins are equal and ~god~ loves y’all equally so he’s going to forgive you naman ha ha ha
It a sin to condemn another sinner and their actions. All sins are equal. So what makes you better than the person you’re condemning?
I think so b/c having sex before marriage doesn’t make you less of a women then if you waited until marriage.. all sins are equal soo
a friendly reminder, all sins are equal in god’s eyes so you’re not better than I am in any way. please worry about your own sins before mine.
People don’t like when I suggest abortion as an option. This is a free country and all sins are equal so mind your business!!!
What I do is no worse than what you do… all sins are equal no matter what it is… a sin is a sin
to god all sins are equal so you have no right to compare your sins to someone else’s bc in the end it doesn’t matter

The first thing that I noticed is that premarital sex and homosexuality are the most popular sins. I would think that divorce and abortion would be up there in the rankings, as well.

People want to be free to follow their hearts when seeking pleasure, then quote the Bible (badly) afterward, to attack anyone who says that anything they’ve done is morally wrong. They would rather escape the judgment of their peers than admit fault and try to fix the mistake and do better next time. And they would rather tell people who are hurting themselves by breaking the rules that there are no rules. It makes them feel good to “not judge” – they feel as if they are being kind. Their compassion looks good to non-Christians. And they’re promoting moral relativism which, when it becomes widespread, prevents anyone from judging them.

It’s so bad now, that the people who have morals and who make moral judgments are seen as the real bad people. The immoral people are on the offense, and even trying to ban people from being able to disagree with them.

Why Does the Media Give A Pass To Biden’s Faith?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Jason Jimenez

Biden, the 46th president, is America’s second Catholic President. The first was John F. Kennedy—when he became President in 1961.

From the start of his campaign, Biden wanted everything to be about his faith. A favored campaign slogan for the Biden camp was the “battle for the soul of the nation.”

It didn’t matter the media outlet. They all loved reporting on how Biden was a “deeply devout Catholic” and that his faith is a huge factor in “shaping his politics.” Even Speaker Pelosi publicly praises Biden’s faith and willingly admits that his Catholic faith has shaped his career and public policies. An article in The New York Times stated, “President Biden, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century, speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies.”

Interesting, isn’t it? How the media and every single big-time progressive politician have no problem mixing Biden’s faith with politics. But suppose you are a Christian who is pro-life and not in favor of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In that case, the response you get from the Left is the complete opposite. How was Judge Amy Coney Barrett (also a deeply devout Catholic) treated during the Senate confirmation hearings? Senator Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues didn’t praise Judge Barrett for her faith. Instead, Senator Feinstein expressed her concern about how Judge Barrett’s faith might influence her decisions by stating, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” But if the Left is so concerned about a person’s faith interfering with their public service, why isn’t the Left disparaging Biden from talking about how his faith shapes his public policies?

The main reason? Because President Biden is as much of a progressive as he is a Catholic. He is what I refer to as a “Progressive Catholic.” Don’t believe me? Listen to what he said in his book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, “I’m as much a cultural Catholic as I am a theological Catholic.” Biden continues, “My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world, comes straight from my religion. It’s not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It’s the culture.”

Because Judge Barrett is a conservative Catholic and not a progressive, liberal Democrats are concerned about her “dogmatic” positions embedding on her judgment. Therefore, she must be censored at all costs. However, in President Biden’s case, he gets a pass because he’ll keep on advancing progressive policies like the Equality Act (which will eviscerate religious freedoms in America), government funding of abortion, and the Green New Deal.

It’s not a question of whether President Biden has a right to express his religious beliefs. He has that right under the Constitution. It’s really about charging the media for being inconsistent by not allowing conservatives to do the same.

Let’s hope the media will admit to their intolerance and learn to be more receptive to Americans who hold conservative viewpoints.

UK Police Arrest 71-Year-Old Pastor For Defining Marriage The Way Jesus Defined Marriage

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I think it’s important for American Christians to learn lessons about what happens to religious liberty by looking at what happens to Christians in other times and places when Democrats (secular leftists) take power. This time, let’s look at a story from the UK, which has been on a 30-year-run into far-left socialism. They’ve embraced atheism, feminism, and socialism. Here’s the result.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

A Christian pastor who was arrested after he preached from the Bible said yesterday he had been treated ‘shamefully’.

John Sherwood, 71, was led away in handcuffs, questioned in a police station and held overnight after being accused of making homophobic comments outside Uxbridge Station in west London.

The grandfather claimed he was left bruised after police pulled him from a mini-stepladder he was using and cuffed his hands behind his back.

Police said they had received complaints the man had been making ‘allegedly homophobic comments’ and arrested him under the Public Order Act, which can be used under the vague proviso that someone is using ‘abusive or insulting words’ that cause ‘harm’ to someone else.

[…]Mr Sherwood, a pastor for 35 years, said: ‘I wasn’t making any homophobic comments, I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn’t wanting to hurt anyone or cause offence.

‘I was doing what my job description says, which is to preach the gospel in open air as well as in a church building.

‘When the police approached me, I explained that I was exercising my religious liberty and my conscience. I was forcibly pulled down from the steps and suffered some injury to my wrist and to my elbow. I do believe I was treated shamefully. It should never have happened.’

Mr Sherwood, who preaches at an independent evangelical church in north London, was arrested under the Public Order Act for allegedly causing alarm or distress.

Before we go too far, let’s just settle the question of what Bible-believing Christians should believe about the definition of marriage.

Matthew 19:1-6:

1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

To be a Christian, minimally, is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That means that we accept what Jesus teaches, on whatever he teaches about. We don’t overturn the teachings of Jesus in order to make people who are rebelling against God feel better about their rebellion. It is central to the Christian worldview that Christians care more about what God thinks of them than what non-Christians think of them. In fact, Christians are supposed to be willing to endure suffering rather than side with non-Christians against God’s authority.

Matt Walsh had a fine article about this issue.

He said:

As Christians, our goal is not to avoid being like the big bad “other Christians,” but to strive to be like Christ Himself. This is one of the advantages to having an Incarnate God. He went around acting and speaking and teaching and generally functioning in our realm, thereby giving us a model to follow. This is the model of a loving and merciful man, and also a man of perfect virtue who fought against the forces of evil, condemned sin, defended his Father in Heaven with sometimes violent force, spoke truth, and eventually laid down His life for those He loved (which would be all of us).

[…]This is what it means to believe in Christ. Not just to believe that He existed, but to believe that Christ is Truth itself, and that everything He said and did was totally and absolutely and irreversibly true forever and always. Many Christians today — not only the ones in the video, but millions alongside them — seem to think we can rightly claim to have “faith” in Jesus or a “relationship” with Him while still categorically denying much of His Word. This is a ridiculous proposition. We can’t declare, in one breath, that Christ is Lord, and in the next suggest that maybe God got it wrong on this or that point. Well, we can make that declaration, but we expose our belief as fraudulent and self-serving. We worship a God we either invented in our heads, which is a false idol, or a God who is fallible, which is a false idol.

If you really accept Jesus as God, then you can’t think he is wrong when he explains what marriage is. Period. End of issue. And yet today, so many church-attending Christians are anxious to change the definition of marriage so that non-Christians will like them.

Why are some church-attending Christians so progressive?

So, I have quite a few evangelical Christian acquaintances who think they are Christians because they got married, had kids, and attend church. You know. They’re “Christians” culturally. But instead of thinking about what policies are supported by the Bible, all their policy-deciding is done for them by NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. That’s because they want to appear “smart” to non-Christians. And having to read books on your own by people like Thomas Sowell (economics), Heather Mac Donald (crime), Douglas Murray (immigration), John Lott (self-defense), Christopher Kaczor (abortion), Ryan T. Anderson (marriage), etc. is just TOO MUCH WORK. Reading is hard. It makes churchy Christians feel bad. Much better to watch Star Wars / Ellen and read fantasy/romance novels and buy video games/handbags.

The point of having political views, they say, is to look smart and good to others. Not to promote policies that are consistent with the Bible, or that allow Christians to act consistently with the Bible. So you get church-attending Christians voting against the small government, free speech, religious liberty, the rule of law, private property, school choice, etc. because forming beliefs by consuming secular left radio and TV is easier than reading.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/dbYqTMe

May 17, 2021/by Guest

Finding Common Ground In A Time of Stark Division

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

“While We All Want to Believe That We Are Committed to Truth Rather Than A Narrative, Our Actions In Conversation—How We Mistreat Evidence, Mischaracterize Opposing Views And Arguments, And Attack The Challenger Rather Than The Challenge—Often Tell A Different Story.” Luke Nix

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

In these times of stark division, it is important that we not allow our disagreements to ultimately result in the destruction of our unity as a society, culture, and Church. There is nothing wrong with a society having a diversity of ideas, as long as those ideas are discussed and debated respectfully. When the wrong ideas are identified, such a respectful dialog can result in the dismissal of false ideas and the acceptance of true ideas. This is progress. Progress towards the objective goal of a society that has and lives according to the view of reality as it actually is and not some delusion.

However, many times discussion is stifled because we do not recognize common ground with those in which we disagree. When we possess and recognize common ground, we have a connection to maintain a healthy relationship when we have stark disagreements and rigorously debate which view (if either) accurately reflect reality. Today I want to point out six different things that we all hold in common that, if recognized by even one side, can help keep relationships healthy despite disagreements.

The Image of God

We are all created in the Image of God, thus we are all intrinsically, equally valuable. No matter how strongly we disagree with the other person, they ultimately have just as much value as we do and are worthy of our love and respect. No matter how disrespectful or unloving they are in their discussion or behavior towards us or others, this value remains in tact and stands as a reminder to us that a disrespectful or unloving posture towards them is never justified. We must remember that behind every challenge is a challenger. The challenge must be dealt with logically and evidentially, but the challenger must be addressed lovingly and respectfully.

Our Sinfulness

We are all sinners that have fallen short of God’s objective, moral standard, thus there will be evil committed by people against people. While we are all created in God’s Image and possess intrinsic and equal value, this does not mean that any of us is perfect. People will offend us. We will offend others. People will deeply hurt us, and we will deeply hurt others. People will sin against us, and, yes, we will sin against others. It is important to recognize that we will all fail and must treat each other, even those with whom we disagree, with the grace and forgiveness that we would like to be treated when we sin. And if we expect others to humbly accept correction, then we must also humbly accept correction when we make mistakes.

Christ’s Forgiveness

We are all sinful, but we are all loved by our morally perfect Creator. Jesus died and rose from the dead so that all people could receive the forgiveness necessary so that we can spend eternity with our Creator and each other. We are all in this same boat. No person needs Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another; no person deserves Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another, but every person must accept Christ’s forgiveness. We are all equally in need of forgiveness, and as long as we are still alive, Christ’s forgiveness is available. Thus we should never condemn another to hell because of their current worldview or moral position. Rather we should prayerfully pursue persuasion with evidence, logic, love, gentleness, and respect.

Our Fear

Our fear of being wrong and how changing a view may impact our other views and relationships. Many times when we are presenting evidence for a conclusion that someone opposes, it is not necessarily the evidence that the other person finds lacking but rather the possible implications of changing their mind. Some undesirable implications are perceived to be logical, and we must show either how the perceived implications do not logically follow (thus are not logically required to be consistent) or are not what they seem. Other undesired implications can be relational, and we must compassionately encourage those who may suffer severed or damaged relationships for accepting what is demonstrated to be true. We must remember our own experiences with these fears and patiently guide others while, of course, keeping the above common ground in mind because they may actually be doing the same for us while we may be the ones with these fears.

Our Questions and Doubts

We do not know everything, nor can we know everything. The same goes for everyone else. We will all have doubts and questions that we think must be answered before we can change our view. But not every little question and challenge can be answered about every view that we discuss. That is okay because not every question or challenge, if not answered the way we want or expect, presents a defeater for the view we’re questioning. Just as we expect others to consider the evidence that we present for our view and honestly consider if their questions or challenges truly undermine our evidence, we must be willing to engage in those considerations of their evidence and our questions as well. If we expect others to consider if they are just offering excuses to avoid changing their mind, we must be willing to demand the same of ourselves.

Our Choice

Finally, we all have the choice to either defend our narrative, or we can defend what is true about this world. We must choose to be committed to what is true, no matter the cost to ourselves; or we must be committed to what we want, no matter the cost to others. No doubt, it is objectively true that a commitment to truth, sacrificing self, is noble; and a commitment to self, sacrificing others, is despicable. Making this choice takes honesty, humility, and self-reflection, and frankly it can be a struggle. While we all want to believe that we are committed to truth rather than a narrative, our actions in conversation—how we mistreat evidence, mischaracterize opposing views and arguments, and attack the challenger rather than the challenge—often tell a different story. It is definitely true that “actions speak louder than words,” and it is time that we recognize that we must not merely apply that to others but to ourselves as well. As we struggle through this decision and recall the struggle, we can be more patient with and offer encouragement to those who are currently in the middle of the struggle.

Remembering that we hold much common ground with those we disagree with, often struggling in the past or in the present, and knowing that we desire gentleness and respect in those struggles, it is a most reasonable and loving expectation that we treat them as we wish for them to treat us. We should never be cold in our conversations; emotional warmth is necessary. Wisely conducting our conversations in the context of our common ground allows us to turn up the heat on the issues without burning the person behind the questions.

Christians Must Care Less about Our Cultural Reputation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

Never have I written an article title that sounds less intuitive. Don’t we need to be concerned about our witness to the world? Isn’t that implied in the Great Commission? Shouldn’t people see us and want to follow Jesus because of our reputation?

Stick with me here, because this requires some nuance and it’s really important.

The idea that Christians need to fix a growing reputation problem in our society is becoming increasingly common in conversations on social media and even in articles by well-known Christian leaders. Comments like “The world is watching…” or “We’re damaging our witness by…” often warn believers to modify what we say or do so culture will think differently about us. The assumption is that we’ve collectively gone wrong in recent months (or years), and now we’ve got to quickly do something about it…before the world thinks even worse of us.

I would agree that Christians (and Christianity in general) are increasingly being seen in a negative light by nonbelievers. But I think we need to be extremely careful in how we assess and respond to that fact.

Our cultural reputation is not necessarily a measure of how faithfully we’re living out our calling as Christians.

If we treat it as such, we’re going to end up fixing the wrong problems.

What Makes a Reputation?

By definition, a reputation is “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.” This implies that a reputation involves the words and actions of two parties:

What party one says or does
What party two thinks party one says or does, and how they evaluate that

This is where things get tricky. If your reputation is negative in some way with another party, it could:

be deserved (based on what you’ve said or done);
be a mistranslation between what you’ve said or done and what the other party thinks you’ve said or done; or
be a negative evaluation of what you’ve said or done, even when accurately understood.

When we consider the layers involved here, we can better understand why our reputation—what people think of us—is less important than we might assume.

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

I follow a number of atheist authors and organizations on Facebook to see what’s important to them and how they talk about various issues. One thing I’ve noticed over years of doing this is that they focus more on highlighting the worst examples of Christianity than on anything else. One example that quickly comes to mind is Westboro Baptist Church, known for protests featuring signs proclaiming that “God hates fags.”

This is horrendous.

God loves everyone, even if he hates sin. And to use such derogatory language reveals a misplaced motivation for why they do what they do. Such tactics are rooted in contempt, not in love for bringing people into a saving relationship with Jesus.

If someone pointed out this example as something that gives Christians a bad reputation, I would say, “Yes, it absolutely does.” This isn’t consistent with the Bible at all. It would be extremely unfortunate for anyone to judge the truth and/or goodness of Christianity as a whole based on individual examples like this, but the reality is that they do. While we may think this kind of extrapolation is unfair (“Westboro doesn’t represent Christianity!”), we have to recognize that our culture has a very poor understanding of biblical Christianity and will come to faulty conclusions because of it.

It’s not just extreme examples like Westboro that give Christians a bad reputation, of course. There are plenty of Christians engaging in conversations that could hardly be described as bringing glory to God. The tone we use, the approach we take, and the words we share can do even more damage to the Christian “reputation” than the Westboros of the world because firsthand interactions often leave a more lasting impact.

This aspect of reputation is what we should care deeply about because it’s what we have control over—the integrity of our witness. As Paul says in Philippians 1:27, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.”

In all we do, we should stay obsessively focused on that question: Is my conduct worthy of the name of the Lord?

When There’s a Mistranslation

In a lengthy Instagram post this week, singer Demi Lovato detailed why gender reveal parties are “transphobic.” Lovato says:

“It’s both insincere and incorrect to pretend that gender reveal parties are not transphobic… Transphobia is not just about prejudice against individual trans people, it’s also a way of thinking that understands non-trans people as more natural/organic and erases everyone else.”

Yes, having a party to announce your baby’s gender now means you’re afraid of people who struggle with gender dysphoria and want to “erase” them.

For Christians, it’s nothing new to be called homophobic or transphobic because of a belief that biblical marriage is between a man and woman or that God created two genders. But to characterize these beliefs as “phobic” (a fear) is a mistranslation; saying that God has a sexual and marital design for humans isn’t to be afraid of anything. It’s to believe that God has revealed his will and purposes for humanity in the Bible and that popular moral consensus on these issues conflicts with that revelation. It simply doesn’t follow that these beliefs imply hatred or fear, yet society continually labels them as such. The result? Christians often have a reputation for being homophobic or transphobic.

No one wants to be known as hateful or fearful, so what do we do with that?

Here’s where the problematic responses come into the picture.

Christians are increasingly on a crusade to save us from this reputation—not by working to correct the misunderstanding that moral disagreement equals hate, but by refusing to speak up or by changing their view to match that of society. I experience this all the time when I post articles about hot cultural topics on my Facebook author page. There are always Christians who comment that it gives others a negative impression of us when we speak out on certain subjects (even when we do so graciously), or who comment that the traditional view is wrong in the first place.

Silence or agreement may improve our cultural reputation with non-believers, but it’s fixing the wrong problem.

In our silence, we fail to be the salt and light we’re called to be.

In our agreement, we fail to be faithful to God’s Word.

In fixing our “reputation,” we break our integrity.

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written often in recent months about his concern for the church’s witness, particularly in the area of politics.

In his widely shared article, “The Gospel in a Democracy Under Assault,” Moore wrote that Christians need to be “people of truth.” What does that entail? He explains:

“It will take decades to rebuild from the wreckage in this country. But, as Christians, we can start now—just by not being afraid to say what is objectively the truth. Joe Biden has been elected president. Millions of babies are being aborted. The pandemic is real. So is racial injustice—both personal and systemic. So is the sexual abuse of women and children. If Christians are people of truth, we ought to be the first to acknowledge reality.”

In a backhanded way, Moore is suggesting that Christians are guilty of damaging our witness because we’ve collectively been denying the “realities” on his truth list. The implication is that we need to be known for agreeing with these statements if we have any hope of salvaging our credibility.

But some of these so-called truths we’re all supposed to acknowledge are grossly oversimplified.

For example, I’ve never seen a single person suggest that the pandemic doesn’t exist. Everyone knows it’s real, but Christians have varied views on its relative risk, issues surrounding freedom to worship, and the tradeoff between health risk and economics. If culture accurately understands that many Christians are concerned about the freedom to worship even in a pandemic but evaluates that negatively (an example of the third type of reputation issue), that’s not necessarily something we can or should fix. The world doesn’t like it, but sometimes we have to be just fine with that.

Similarly, Moore says that we all must acknowledge the reality of systemic racism. But systemic racism is a loaded term that has a very specific meaning today—it’s the idea that racism is baked into the very structure of our society, and any disparity in outcomes between people is due to oppressive social structures. There are many Christians who would not agree with Moore that this is a “truth” we should be lining up behind in order to salvage our cultural credibility. Again, if culture evaluates Christians negatively for not buying into the idea that disparate outcomes are necessarily the product of racist social structures, we can’t necessarily fix that reputation “problem.” The world will simply not always think well of us for what we believe or what we don’t.

Ironically, Moore himself is adding to the very reputation issue he is concerned about by suggesting to the watching world that Christians have thought or done wrong to get the reputation we have. Yet at least a couple of those things have more to do with the negative evaluation people have of legitimate Christian concerns than about actual failure to live faithfully.

It is right to be concerned with our witness to the world. We do want people to be attracted to Jesus through us. But that doesn’t mean we should try to manage our reputation, because there’s much involved we can’t control. Remember, Jesus said the world will hate us (John 15:18). We just want to be sure we’re disliked for the right reasons. If the world hates us because of the truth we share, that’s to be expected. If the world hates us because we’re acting like a bunch of ungodly jerks, may we feel the deepest conviction to repent of the ugliness we’ve brought to the name of the Lord.

How Religion Is Being Twisted to Support Political Agendas—Interview with Dr Frank Turek

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Joshua Philipp of the Epoch Times recently interviewed me on how religion, particularly Christianity, is being twisted to support political agendas. Josh asks excellent questions in this wide-ranging interview that touches on abortion, transgenderism, same-sex marriage, the separation of church and state, legislating morality, socialism, LGBTQ goals and the equality act, Woke Christianity, the cancel culture, and more.

You may notice I’m identified in the video as the “President of Summit Ministries”. I’ve not taken over for my friend Jeff Myers at Summit! I was just representing Summit on this interview while Jeff was recovering from an illness.

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Unequal Treatments of Equity

The Injustice of Equity

The Inconsistencies of Equity

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Four-Fold Evaluation

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why are some church-attending Christians so progressive?

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

The Image of God

Our Sinfulness

Christ’s Forgiveness

Our Fear

Our Questions and Doubts

Our Choice

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What Makes a Reputation?

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

When There’s a Mistranslation

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: