Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives - Page 11 of 24

Warnings To A Godless Society

Earlier this year, I highlighted the warnings of rejecting God, coming from the mouth of an atheist. Richard Dawkins saw the moral degradation of world society and couldn’t help to understand that the world’s rejection of God’s existence (that he, no doubt, helped catalyze) has led us here. He warned that it would continue, and in recent months, America has certainly seen Dawkins’ warnings come true.

With the rejection of God comes the rejection of two important concepts that keep civilized society together: the existence of objective moral obligations and duties, and the existence of intrinsic human value that is grounded in our being created in the Image of God.

With the rejection of the first, there is no objective “right” or “wrong,” all thoughts, actions, and behaviors just are- they have no moral value whatsoever, and none can be correctly judged as “evil” or “good.” Every evil act, from the “eugenics” promoted by Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger to domestic and international child sex trafficking, have become common in our world. Politicians, the media, and even everyday citizens often turn a blind eye to these acts because “who is to say that these acts are ‘evil’?”

With the rejection of the second, there is no reason to think that humans have intrinsic value and should not be used; however, we wish towards our goals. A human’s value is wholly constituted in their ability to contribute to an arbitrary purpose set by someone in power over them. In the event that a person has a goal of achieving career development or sexual pleasure, that means that if a child must be murdered or raped in order to achieve that goal, the rape and murder are not wrong because that child possesses no intrinsic value and, of course, the rape and murder are not evil because there is no objective “right” or “wrong,” “good” or “evil” by which to properly categorize the rape or murder (or torture, or theft, etc.).

What Have We Become?

As a result of this rejection of God, people understand that they are now permitted to act however they wish to whomever they wish to get whatever they wish. While not new to them or their time in history, Frank Turek and Norman Geisler made this observation several years ago in their book “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible“:

This rejection of God and the resultant moral turmoil in America has led to numerous evils; three of the most recent murders have been those of George Floyd, Cannon Hinnants, and Jacob Blake. Americans know that murder is objectively morally wrong. Because of this knowledge, we are horrified and desire swift justice. Unfortunately, many have used these murders as justification to act in ways that rational citizens and leaders would normally not tolerate, much less encourage.

Objective moral values and duties do exist, as evidenced by Americans’ reaction to the murders, and we must adhere to them no matter how tempting it is to rationalize their usage toward some “righteous” end. Yes, evil and injustice (properly defined) exist in this world, but repaying evil with evil will not fix the problem.

Rational and moral people understand that when we use evil to fight the evil that we betray a satisfaction with trading one evil for another evil. And in reality, when we fight evil with evil, we are not removing evil but multiplying its existence. We are taken less seriously because we have not taken the time to reason through our chosen methods for seeking justice (properly defined) to see the dire implications of such choices. Such knee-jerk reactions are completely emotive, devoid of any reason or morality. They are more about getting revenge (evil) rather than getting justice (good). Rational and moral people know that it is better to address the original evil with morally good means in order to accomplish a morally good end of justice (again, properly defined).

The Struggle For Power

But there is one major hurdle to overcome. As I mentioned, objective moral values and duties exist. This basic knowledge is written on the heart of every human being. But objective moral values and duties cannot exist unless God exists to be an objective foundation for them.

In America, it seems that so many on the various political sides (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) are attempting to get along without recognizing the existence of the Moral Law-Giver.

Without the recognition of such an objective standard by which to judge what is truly a moral evil and what is truly a morally good method to resolve the moral evil, then everything is up for grabs, even within the various political parties (as we can see by the wide range of views even within the two main political parties in America).

If God does not exist, what is “right” ultimately comes down to a power struggle. Whichever side forces those who disagree into submission (no matter how) will ultimately determine what is right and what is wrong with nothing else to challenge them except for a stronger force that comes in later to turn everything upside down yet again. See this video from Reasonable Faith on God’s existence and moral values and duties:

In recent months, we have seen one side looting and rioting in an attempt to demonstrate their power and strike fear into the citizens in order to force what they want on those who disagree. Unfortunately, we have seen many in leadership, influential, and governmental positions in America encourage these actions for political gain.

What Will We Become?

Without the objective standard of God, we have no choice but to allow aberrant behaviors. For our distaste of them is merely that: taste. Without God, our aversion to the desires of those rioting, looting, and murdering (along with the actions themselves) is only an opinion that is no more valid or reflective of reality than the rioters’, looters’, and murders’ opinions. But Americans know differently. They know that objective morality exists. For this knowledge to be possible, God must exist, and unless Americans are prepared to recognize that reality and defend it, there is zero chance that order and freedom can be restored to our country on a long-term basis.

If Americans wish to get control of their country back and restore rational action across their cities, they are going to have to recognize the reality of God’s existence. Not merely paying lip service to His existence like so many politicians (and many Americans) do, but seriously commit to what His existence and objective moral standard means for each individual’s responsibility as American citizens. We have to put our pride in check (which is not something that Americans are keen on doing) and recognize our sinful condition and our tendency to try to correct past and current sins by committing even more sins and consciously choose the moral high ground and vote for those who also will choose the moral high ground.

It is only in our recognition of this common, sinful trait among all people (of all colors, nationalities, social/economic statuses, etc.) that we can find common ground to move forward. And it is only through the recognition of the need for forgiveness through Christ that we can stop pointing fingers and progress together towards reconciliation and being “one nation, under God” again. If God is removed from the American equation, the only result will be an irrecoverable loss of freedom for all.

Why Would A Woman Want To Participate In The Hook-Up Culture?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Wintery Knight

Do young women understand how to get to a stable marriage?

Note: in this article, when I refer to women, I mean young, unmarried women who have been influenced by feminism. I do not mean all women, and especially not married women.

My good friend Tom sent me this article from the ultra left-wing Vanity Fair. Tom is a veteran of the brutal New York City dating scene.

The article contains sex and bad language. Reader discretion is advised.

Excerpt:

It’s a balmy night in Manhattan’s financial district, and at a sports bar called Stout, everyone is Tindering. The tables are filled with young women and men who’ve been chasing money and deals on Wall Street all day, and now they’re out looking for hookups. Everyone is drinking, peering into their screens, and swiping on the faces of strangers they may have sex with later that evening.

Tinder is a hook-up app that people use to find people to have sex with, based solely on their photograph.

The article says this:

“Romance is completely dead, and it’s the girls’ fault,” says Alex, 25, a New Yorker who works in the film industry. “They act like all they want is to have sex with you, and then they yell at you for not wanting to have a relationship. How are you gonna feel romantic about a girl like that? Oh, and by the way? I met you on Tinder.”

“Women do exactly the same things guys do,” said Matt, 26, who works in a New York art gallery. “I’ve had girls sleep with me off OkCupid and then just ghost me”—that is, disappear, in a digital sense, not returning texts. “They play the game the exact same way. They have a bunch of people going at the same time—they’re fielding their options. They’re always looking for somebody better, who has a better job or more money.” A few young women admitted to me that they use dating apps as a way to get free meals. “I call it Tinder food stamps,” one said.

Even the emphasis on looks inherent in a dating game based on swiping on photos is something men complain women are just as guilty of buying into. “They say in their profiles, ‘No shirtless pictures,’ but that’s bulls**t,” says Nick, the same as above. “The day I switched to a shirtless picture with my tattoos, immediately, within a few minutes, I had, like, 15 matches.”

And if women aren’t interested in being treated as sexual objects, why do they self-objectify in their profile pictures? some men ask. “There’s a lot of girls who are just like, Check me out, I’m hot, I’m wearing a bikini,” says Jason…

Men talk about the nudes they receive from women. They show off the nudes. “T*t pics and booty pics,” said Austin, 22, a college student in Indiana. “My phone is full of ‘em.”

Although the article, and the women who are interviewed, try to pass themselves off as victims, it’s very clear that they are full participants in this hook-up culture. It’s “fun” for them to be free and independent – no responsibilities, expectations, or obligations from a relationship. They want fun right now, without the leadership of a husband, or the demands of small children.

Feminist writer Hanna Rosin says that this hook-up culture is great:

Some, like Atlantic writer Hanna Rosin, see hookup culture as a boon: “The hookup culture is … bound up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young woman in 2012—the freedom, the confidence.”

The Vanity Fair author comments:

“Short-term mating strategies” seem to work for plenty of women too; some don’t want to be in committed relationships, either, particularly those in their 20s who are focusing on their education and launching careers.

Previously, I quoted a feminist professor writing in the New York Times. She also thought that it was great that women were hooking up with hot guys for fun, but staying focused on their educations and careers.

Here’s Amanda to explain it:

“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda… “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”

Who doesn’t want to have sex? Well, me for one. At least, not till I’m married.

Amanda later explains that she doesn’t want to care because caring would mean that she “somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism.” She has to be independent – able to dismiss responsibilities, expectations, and obligations in order to pursue happiness with education, career, travel, and promiscuity.

I know Christian women who think they are fundamentalists who have this exact same attitude. They think that relationships are somehow compatible with doing whatever they want to do – that doing whatever makes them happy each and every moment will somehow turn into life-long married love.

Why don’t women reject the men who use them like kleenexes? Why is the man’s appearance so much more important than his suitability for the marriage roles of husband and father? Well, feminism tells women that gender distinctions are “sexist,” that chivalry is “sexist,” that chastity is “repressive” because it blocks having recreational sex, that marriage is boring and must be delayed, and that having lots of sexual experience makes you more attractive. They measure men by how the man makes them feel and whether he will be impressive physically to their peers. They aren’t looking for a man who can perform traditional male roles like protector or provider or moral and spiritual leader – because male leadership is “sexist.”

As always, should you, as a young Christian man of some means, desire to get married, then I recommend using my checklist to validate your candidate. I know a lot of women who married without any intention of being a wife and mother. Sometimes, they marry just because their friends are all getting married. If you, as a man, do not check this woman’s reasons for marrying, you may find yourself legally bound to someone who “settled” for you. And who has no intention of respecting you or educating your children.

How Should The Church Engage Those With Same-Sex Attraction Or Gender Dysphoria?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

How should the church engage those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria? In response, I want to highlight seven basic principles that the church must embrace.

Affirm The Divine Image

Genesis 1 is clear that everyone, without qualification, is made in God’s’s image. That is to say; whether someone is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex, they are equally image-bearers of God. The same goes for individuals who experience gender dysphoria. One’s’s feelings or attractions in no way mitigates against this universal status.

As Christians, we should enthusiastically embrace this truth. Nobody — not the government, the church, or anyone else — can bestow a higher status on each person than God already has. Moreover, not only did God create all people in his image, he thought so much of his people that he paid a steep price for their redemption by shedding his own blood for their sins.

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

While God created everything good, we all possess a sin nature because of the fall. David acknowledges that he inherited this sin nature from the time of his birth (Ps. 51:5). Romans 3:23, likewise, affirms that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. And lest we think we’re just a little sinful, Scripture paints a much gloomier picture than this. Sin pervades our entire being (Rom. 8:7-8).

One of the ramifications of our fallenness is that we have a tendency to minimize our own sins while maximizing the sins of others. Yet, Jesus clearly condemns this hypocrisy (Mt. 7:1-5). Instead, we must take a realistic assessment of our own hearts. And when we do, we realize that if it weren’t for the grace of God, we would all die in our sins.

All that to say, just because we may not experience homosexual or transgender temptations doesn’t mean that our sin isn’t just as wicked. Lusting after other women, harboring bitterness, lashing out in anger, and spreading gossip are all acts of rebellion against God. It’s’s unbiblical to treat others as if they have a log in their eye and pretend we only have a speck. When we do this, we’re being judgmental hypocrites.

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Jesus preached “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). To claim Christ as Lord, one must abide by these words. Unfortunately, many have watered down this message by excluding repentance.

Yet, Jesus never suggested that we could follow him without turning from our sins. Elsewhere, he states, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mk. 8:34). In other words, whether you self-identify as gay, transgender, or as straight, Jesus demands that you deny yourself daily. And the reason we are called to deny ourselves is because we don’t actually own ourselves. We belong to Jesus. Not only did he make us, he bought us with his blood.

The very message of repentance and denying oneself daily implies that ongoing temptations and struggles will persist throughout the Christian life. But the true sign of a Christian is that they recognize their temptations as contrary to the will of God, repent if they succumb to those temptations, and seek to obey Jesus moving forward.

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

First, Peter 1:16 states, “You shall be holy, for I (God) am holy.” Holiness is the calling for all believers. But this raises the question: “What does holiness look life for those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria?” Does holiness mean they will stop being attracted to members of the same sex or that their gender dysphoria will disappear?

I believe holiness can manifest itself in different ways for people with these struggles. One way is living a celibate lifestyle. British pastor Sam Allbery, and author of Is God Anti-Gay? Has chosen this path. Even though Allberry continues to experience same-sex attraction, he knows that pursuing those attractions would be sinful and so chooses to remain celibate. It’s noteworthy that Jesus indicated that celibacy was the only alternative to marriage (Mt. 19:10-12).

Others have chosen to marry persons of the opposite sex and start families despite ongoing same-sex attractions. Rebecca McLaughlin, author of Confronting Christianity, has chosen this path. In her book, Rebecca acknowledges she still experiences same-sex attractions but knows that pursuing those attractions would be disobedience. She even admits to still dealing with temptations towards members of the same sex. But she has chosen to deny herself to follow Jesus.

And sometimes, people stop being attracted to members of the same-sex altogether. We must acknowledge that this doesn’t happen in most cases, but for people like Rosaria Butterfield, it has. Rosaria details this transformation in her book Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul lists several lifestyles that will not inherit the kingdom of God — one of which was “men who practice homosexuality.” But in verse 11, he asserts, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit of our God.” I take this to mean that there were people in the Corinthian church who used to practice homosexuality but turned from that lifestyle upon conversion.

I don’t believe this means that the struggles and temptations completely go away. Anyone with a half-decent understanding of biblical theology knows that Christians continue to struggle as we await future glory (Rom. 8:20-23). This is certainly true of me. So we should have realistic expectations that those who experience same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria will often continue to struggle as they face temptations the rest of their lives.

Therefore, the goal for the same-sex attracted person isn’t that they become “straight.” The goal is that they be holy as God is holy. And we should have enough room in our understanding of sanctification to know that this will look different for different people.

Be People Of Love

One of the surest signs of a Christian is their love for others (Jn. 13:35). It is never appropriate for us to be condescending or harsh (Prov. 15:1). Unfortunately, many of us have really missed the mark on this one. While not all the criticism is fair, we haven’t always been known as people who demonstrate the love of Christ towards the LGBTQ community.

As we think about Christ, he was the most loving person to ever live. And we’re told that he was full of both grace and truth (Jn. 1:14). Biblical love perfectly balances these two.

We read in 1 Corinthians 13:6 that love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” Therefore, it is not loving to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism in the same way that it’s not loving to affirm a woman’s anorexia and encourage her to get liposuction because she feels overweight. The loving thing to do is to gently speak the truth to her and remind her that her feelings are deceiving her. In the same way, Christians must speak the truth in love to those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (Eph. 4:15). It is not loving to encourage a lifestyle that does not promote spiritual flourishing.

But while we speak the truth, we must do so with a spirit of gentleness. Paul reminds us in Galatians 6:1-2, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. . . . Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” No one should beat anyone over the head with a Bible. No one should “come down hard” on another. Doing so contradicts the clear commands of Scripture.

Bearing one another’s burdens requires a great deal of empathy. It requires putting oneself in someone else’s shoes in an attempt to understand the challenges they face. It requires having conversations with those who experience different temptations than us and seeing that person as a fellow human being who bears God’s image.

And if we approach people with a spirit of gentleness, we will make it easier for them to share their struggles with us. Imagine how hard it must be for people to open up about their same-sex attraction when people in the church speak about their struggle so harshly. Empathizing doesn’t mean accepting sin. But it does mean being gentle. After all, Jesus was “gentle and lowly in heart” (Mt. 11:29).

Be Like Their Family

For many who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, celibacy may seem like the only real option for them. While God has changed people’s orientation, and while many have gotten married despite ongoing same-sex attraction, celibacy is the most realistic option for many. But with singleness, comes the fear of loneliness. And we must understand that loneliness is one of the greatest struggles single people deal with — same-sex attracted or not.

But this shouldn’t be. If the church lived out its mission, nobody would ever be lonely. Unfortunately, we have idolized the family with the minivan at the expense of our single brothers and sisters. This is wrong. The church should champion singleness. After all, Jesus himself was single. Paul champions singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. He goes so far as to say that singles are an incredible gift to the church.

Jesus declared in Mark 10:29-30, “Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much as this present age.”

Sam Allberry writes, “The gospel can be relationally costly. But it is also relationally generous. What we leave behind does not compare to what we receive back from Jesus.” ¹

As churches, we must do a better job of inviting singles into our families. No single should be alone on holidays. No single should eat Sunday lunches by themselves. If we say we want to help same-sex attracted people, we need to do everything we can to make sure they feel like they’re part of our family.

Find Our Identity In Christ

You’ll notice I haven’t labeled anyone as “gay” or “lesbian” in this blog series. Instead, I use the phrase “same-sex attracted.” It’s a bit tedious, but I want to make it clear that nobody is defined by their sexuality. This message, though, runs counter to our sexed-up culture. The culture says you are your sexuality. And that not expressing yourself sexually is unhealthy.

Of course, when we buy the narrative that our identity is wrapped up in our sexuality, then not embracing one’s sexual desires seems untenable. Celibacy seems so “old-fashioned.” But when we understand that our identity is rooted much deeper than our physical attractions, we realize that we don’t have to embrace those attractions to live a fulfilling life.

Our relationship with Christ supersedes everything. And because I am in Christ, and Christ is in me, then no matter what earthly relationships I experience, my identity remains unshakeable. Jesus is clear that our familial relationships will pass away in eternity (Mt. 22:30). But our relationship with Christ remains forever.

Concluding Thoughts

My hope is that God has used these articles in your life for good. If you’re someone who experiences same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, I hope you will see that Jesus offers you so much more than this world has to offer. He is so much more fulfilling and satisfying than any earthly relationship. People will disappoint. Jesus will never let you down. I also hope you will see that your attractions or feelings don’t disqualify you from faithful Christianity. More important is how you respond to those feelings. And my prayer is that you will find a healthy local church that will be your family and encourage you in your daily walk with Jesus.

If you’re someone who agrees with me that God has designed marriage and sexuality to exist within a heterosexual marriage, I hope you will see there are good reasons for believing what you believe. I also hope that you’ll see yourself as a fellow sinner who daily relies on the grace of God.

How to Build a More Discerning, Less Naïve, and Better Culturally Engaged Church

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

In my last article, Christian Naivety is Harming the Church’s Engagement with Today’s Culture; I identified four ways that I’ve seen many Christians respond with naivety to calls for discernment in today’s world. At the end, I asked, “How do we fix this?” and said my answer would be the subject of my next article. This is that article. Since this is a follow-up, please be sure to read my last post before this one for context.

Let me start by saying that the title of this article is a rather sweeping proposition. Obviously, this is a single article, the issues are complex, and I’m not claiming that what I write here is a complete answer to all the problems we have. But I want to offer what I see as some key levers needed to drive change in how Christians engage with today’s culture.

In my years as a marketing executive, I came to deeply appreciate one particular model that people in the marketing field have used for over one hundred years (in various shapes and forms). It’s a simple funnel that describes the psychological stages people go through before committing to an action:

Though this originates in marketing, I’ve noticed many times in the last few years how this model applies to so much in the area of ministry as well. As such, I’m going to use it as a framework for my current subject. If we want to move more Christians to the bottom of the funnel—the action point of being more discerning, less naïve, and better culturally engaged—here are the key levers I see at the awareness, interest, and desire points leading there.

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Every time there’s a heated discussion on social media about some issue of discernment (calling out sin, the intersection of morality and politics, etc.), you can count about 5 seconds before a Christian drops a comment reminding everyone involved that Jesus says not to judge.

Or that Christians just need to “love” people (however, the person defines that).

Nothing to me represents a bigger lack of biblical literacy than when people make those two culturally popular comments, completely lacking in context and understanding of what the Bible says on these subjects.

Now, if research showed that Christians read their Bibles consistently and deeply and we were still seeing pervasive comments that suggest a lack of understanding, I would be writing here about the need for more guidance in Bible study. Guidance is surely important too, but the research shows many Christians aren’t even reading the Bible in the first place.

A study by LifeWay Research, for example, found that only 45 percent of those who regularly attend church read the Bible more than once a week. Almost 1 in 5 churchgoers say they never read the Bible, and that’s about the same number who read it every day.

If a person doesn’t realize that their understanding of the Bible lacks appropriate context and depth, they end up navigating the stormy cultural waters in whatever way happens to make sense to them based on what they think the Bible says. Ironically, without an accurate biblical anchor, their Christian views get completely watered down by the cultural waves…and discernment no longer functions effectively. They’re less able to engage effectively with culture because they aren’t even fully aware of how a biblical and secular worldview really differ.

A less naïve, more discerning church must start with deeper biblical literacy. This should be a top priority for churches everywhere.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Even if a person gains a better understanding of what the Bible says on relevant cultural topics (the awareness I just addressed), it doesn’t mean they’ll be interested enough to become culturally engaged. There could be many reasons for that, but there’s one that’s especially problematic: a lack of conviction that Christianity is objectively (and exclusively) true.

Pew Research shows that 65 percent of Christians believe many religions can lead to eternal life. This, of course, is another example of pervasive biblical illiteracy; the Bible clearly claims that only through Jesus is there eternal life (see Chapter 7, “Did Jesus Teach That He’s the Only Way to God?” in Talking with Your Kids about Jesus for more on this). If a person believes that Christianity is one of many worldviews that ultimately leads to the same truth, they aren’t going to be all that interested in standing up for what they perceive to be just one of those so-called “truths.”

A church filled with Christians who lack conviction that Christianity is the one true worldview is a church filled with Christians who will never care enough to challenge a non-Christian culture.

This is why there’s a desperate need for apologetics in the church today (apologetics is the study of why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true and how to defend the faith against various challenges). Christians need to understand: 1) the evidence for God’s existence (see chapters 1-6 in Talking with Your Kids about God); 2) why multiple religions cannot be true (see chapter 10 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side); 3) the evidence for the resurrection (i.e., the truth test for Christianity as the one true religion—see part 4 of Talking with Your Kids about Jesus); and 4) the evidence for the reliability of the Bible (see part 4 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side).

Knowing why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is objectively true—and why that truth makes an eternal difference—is a critically important step toward building a church that cares enough to stand for truth.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Let’s now say that we have a person who is aware of what the Bible says on today’s hot topics, and they’re interested in engaging culture because they’re convicted that the Bible offers the one true picture of reality.

That doesn’t mean they’ll actually do something.

Marketers are well aware that awareness and interest do not always lead to a strong desire to do something because there’s often some kind of barrier. There are a lot of barriers I could list here with respect to cultural engagement, but a major one I’ve seen is the prevailing stigma about mixing politics and religion.

Just saying the words “politics” and “religion” in the same sentence immediately puts people on the defensive. Unfortunately, many pastors and Christian leaders have emphasized a generic dichotomy between the two areas, and over time the stigma of mixing them has grown. Consequently, when important cultural concerns arise—such as the ideology of the Black Lives Matter organization (which I discussed in the last couple of posts)—many Christians automatically bucket those questions into the “don’t touch this” category of “politics and religion,” as if it’s their Christian duty to stay out of it. Meanwhile, people start burning Bibles as part of BLM protests, and Christians are surprised! If you paid attention to their underlying ideology in weeks leading up to this, it’s not surprising at all.

We need to be able to think in more nuanced ways about the interaction of politics and religion if we’re ever going to have a more culturally engaged church that isn’t taken by naive surprise as hostility to Christianity increases.

Here are a few quick things I think we should be able to all agree on:

While some “political” issues are worldview neutral (e.g., local zoning laws), many are not (e.g., abortion or religious freedom laws).
When we’re talking about issues where biblical morality conflicts with secular morality, someone’s morality will be legislated; legislation based on a secular worldview isn’t the “neutral” option.
Acknowledging that there are political issues that involve the moral direction of our country and that Christians should care enough to be engaged in such areas, is not the same as saying one political party or the other represents Christianity. It’s also not the same as saying that we’re looking to a political leader to be our savior, or that we think we’ll eventually build an earthly utopia. These are often the strawmen people try to knock down when claiming Christians shouldn’t mix their faith with politics.
There are also many political areas where Christians can legitimately disagree. For example, we should all agree that God cares for would-be immigrants, but we may have very different policy opinions on how best to process immigration in this country. Identifying where grey exists is important for maintaining charitable conversation among Christians while uniting on issues that should be more black-and-white for anyone with a Christian worldview.

In short, we need to quit ending culturally relevant conversations before they begin by perpetuating the idea that politics and religion shouldn’t mix. Of course, they should, in some cases.

In all three of these areas, there is much that any pastor could do in a church through sermons, groups, studies, initiatives, and more. But that doesn’t mean others can’t make a significant impact as well. For example, you can:

Use social media to share biblically-sound articles that educate others about cultural issues from a Christian worldview. (I do my best to share a variety of such articles from my author Facebook page—you can follow me there if you don’t already.)
Take the time to engage in a thoughtful dialog when you see Christians make comments online that lack biblical understanding. It’s worth the time even if the person you initially respond to doesn’t seem to appreciate it—remember that others are reading too. If a comment is best addressed privately, do it that way. But resist the urge to just be silent because that’s the easy thing to do.
Lead a Bible study (online or in person, through your church or on your own).
Lead a book study that addresses current cultural questions from a biblical worldview.
Start a group to learn apologetics. (If you’re interested in starting a group specifically for parents and grandparents, we give you all you need to get going with Grassroots Apologetics for Parents. You can start an in-person or online chapter!)
Encourage your pastor to address more of these questions in sermons.
Work with your church to invite subject matter experts to provide training. Many of these experts are currently offering training online. For example, the Life Training Institute a 4-day Zoom event next week that anyone can sign up for: How to Survive Being Pro-Life on Campus in a Cancel Culture. Many apologetics speakers are also offering remote sessions right now. The Center for Biblical Unity is offering trainings on a biblical approach to current racial questions. So much is available!
Commit to the serious discipleship of your kids. They are literally the future. Training them in the same ways I’ve mentioned here for adults is just as important.

With more discernment from biblical literacy, more interest from conviction, and more willingness to engage by removing the “politics vs. religion” barrier, we can shape a better culturally engaged church. Perhaps one of the positives that will come from the chaos of this year will be a wider recognition that these things are so desperately needed in the body of Christ.

The Power Of Pro-Life Images

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Bob Perry

Forty-six years ago today, the landmark court case we now know as Roe-v-Wade legalized abortion in America. Some think the case is “settled law.” But those of us, who value every human life, don’t see it that way. Roe-v-Wade no more settles the moral question of abortion than the infamous Dred Scott decision “settled” the idea that slaves had no right to U. S. citizenship. But what is the most effective way to convince people of that truth? How do we make a case for life in a way that cannot be dismissed as a simple “religious opinion”? We have an obligation to make a reasoned case for life. But we can also use the power of pro-life images to make that case hit home.

The Case For Life

Several years ago, a local group asked me to give a presentation on how to connect Christian apologetics and the pro-life cause. My connection to the Life Training Institute (LTI) made that task an easy one.

At LTI, we use science and philosophy to show what the unborn is, why it is valuable, and why that makes taking its life a grave moral wrong. The argument is not in the least bit “religious.” It is a rational and reasoned case that points to the most basic of all human rights — the right to life. As I told the group, the case we make is perfectly compatible and consistent with what the Bible teaches. And that is just one more reason to believe the Bible is a reflection of the truth about ultimate reality.

Tell And Show

The presentation I used started with science. I offered the plain, scientific evidence for when life begins that you can find in any embryology textbook. This isn’t a mystery. It begins at the moment of conception.

Next, we use basic philosophical reasoning. We show that there is no difference between the person you are today and the embryo you once were. Certainly, there is no difference that justifies taking your life at that earlier stage in your development.

Finally, after making a reasoned case for our position, we warn our audience that we are about to show a 60-second video clip. There is no narration on the video. It is nothing but a series of images that show the aftermath of abortion in all three trimesters of development.

We do this carefully and compassionately. We warn the audience that the video is graphic and give anyone who wants it a chance to leave the room or cover their eyes before we show it. And then we play this:

This Is Abortion Video from Life Training Institute on Vimeo.

Repercussions

The presentation I gave that day was no different than any other I’ve given. Nor was the reaction to it. But several months later, a friend from the group told me a story about what happened afterward.

He said that he had never seen the argument against abortion presented in quite the way I presented it. It had moved him to put up a Facebook post about it with a link to the video I had shown. No big deal.

But there’s more to the story.

My friend’s post drew some attention and discussion. Little did he know that some of that attention was from a European lady who my friend had never met or spoken to. He and she just happened to be bird lovers and members of the same online group of folks who shared that interest. The lady was an abortion supporter. She was also an atheist.

The images had horrified her.

Seeing Is Believing

Because the post had provoked her, she contacted my friend through the bird-lover group to challenge him about posting it. This initiated a back-and-forth discussion that lasted for weeks.

Eventually, the bird-loving lady not only changed her view on abortion; she was also compelled by my friend’s reasoning to take things a step further. He convinced her to reconsider objections to Christianity itself. By the time he told me the story, the European lady had become a Christian. She was soliciting my friend’s advice about how to approach her “hard-core atheist” son to invite him to do the same.

All because she saw an image.

One Thousand Words

Some people are impervious to careful arguments. For whatever reason, they refuse to consider the logic of the pro-life position. But even if those pro-life arguments fall on deaf ears, the impact of video can be monumental. The European bird lover is not alone. The same thing happened to Ruben Navarette.

In August of 2015, Navarette saw the Planned Parenthood videos that had leaked earlier that summer. For him, that changed everything. He wrote an article on the Daily Beast website explaining why the videos made him question his “pro-choice” position. Ruben Navarette had been a supporter of abortion rights for 30 years. But seeing what abortion is and what it does made him reconsider his position.

Pictures do something words never could.

The Power To Persuade

We use horrifying images in driving classes to convince teens of the dangers of texting and driving. We show before and after images of methamphetamine users to see where drug abuse leads. The state of Wisconsin recently began airing disturbing videos to boost awareness of sex trafficking. And who can ever forget the images they’ve seen of the Holocaust death camps?

We use images because they’re effective in making important points.

Seeing injustice has a way of connecting our intellects to our emotions. The power in that connection is what compels us to change our behavior. Images allow rational human beings to see exactly what abortion is all about.

Thoughtful And Effective

I would never advocate shoving pictures of aborted children in the face of an unsuspecting observer. It’s just plain rude. And while I understand the motivation to do that, I also know that shock value can rebound into anger and dismissal.

I don’t want to be rude, and I don’t want to shock people. But I will keep showing images of abortion because my goal is bigger than that.

I want to make people understand, through reasoned argumentation, what abortion actually is and why it’s wrong. After 46 tragic years, I want them to see the reality that Roe-v-Wade has unleashed on otherwise civil society over 60 million times. I want to appeal to their humanity by connecting their heads with their hearts. I don’t just want to change their personal feelings about it. I want to motivate those who condone abortion to change their minds and behaviors.

I don’t just want to talk about it. And I don’t just want to make people look at it.

I want to make it stop.

8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion and Other Controversial Topics

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

Who has not been exposed to or may be even involved in discussions of controversial topics these days?

It seems that talk of politics, race, religion, and a whole host of other controversial topics are swirling around us everywhere we go. Some topics we can ignore and avoid, and others we get sucked into. Some discussions we get reluctantly and others we get into too eagerly. There are numerous pitfalls to having these discussions that we all want to avoid, so today, I want to offer eight tips for discussing controversial topics that will hopefully help your discussions be more productive and respectful. Being that the USA is in an election year (2020), politics seems to be on everyone’s mind, so let’s start with this quote from a book that I reviewed a few years ago entitled “Before You Hit SEND: Avoiding Headache and Heartache” by Emerson Eggerichs to set the stage:

“Some people enter politics because they derive personal fulfillment from the ‘gotcha’ approach to issues. It isn’t about what is true but about the political chess game. The key is to put a better spin on a matter than the other candidate and to put the opposition in checkmate…In political circles the rule of thumb is never admit a mistake or that you don’t know something. Thus, keep talking in an interview to sound like an expert, all the while aware that you don’t know. Feeling on the hot seat, and determined never to be wrong, but fully cognizant that the information is insufficient or incorrect, keep moving your lips, weaving and ducking as best as your polemical skills permit.”

If this sounds all too familiar to you and you’re tired of it, keep on reading!

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #1: You Could Be Wrong

It is important to recognize that we could be wrong about what we believe about reality. Interestingly enough, a challenge could actually be a blessing in disguise. It could be an opportunity for us to let go of false beliefs and acquire true ones. Of course, challenges do not always result in a changed belief; they can also result in a more nuanced and more strongly defended belief. But regardless of the ultimate result of a challenge, when we see it as an opportunity, we give the other person a respect that is often missing from discussions today.

When we demonstrate that we can have a rational discussion where arguments are presented and granted when they are sound, we demonstrate that we are committed to truth. We demonstrate that we understand that we are not perfect and do not necessarily have everything figured out. We also demonstrate that we are willing to hear others out, understand the reasons that they hold the other view and carefully consider those reasons. Greg Koukl summarizes this quite well in his book “Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions“:

“A commitment to truth — as opposed to a commitment to an organization — means an openness to refining one’s own views. It means increasing the accuracy of one’s understanding and being open to correction in thinking. A challenger might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who is convinced of her view, then, should be willing to engage the best arguments against it.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #2: Find Common Ground

This is so important. Regardless of who you are discussing a controversial subject with, you can find some sort of common ground with them. The very fact that we are all created in the Image of God provides a strong set of commonalities that we can begin with. If we hold to the same worldview, in general (this discussion just being one of working out the details), then it is important to recognize that up front. Even if you remain in disagreement at the end of the conversation and agree to pick up the conversation again later, it is important to affirm where agreement exists. Again, Greg Koukl offers wisdom here from “Tactics“:

“As a general rule, go out of your way to establish common ground. Whenever possible, affirm points of agreement. Take the most charitable read on the other person’s motives, not the most cynical. Treat them the way you would like others to treat you if you were the one in the hot seat.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #3: Assume Good Will

Speaking of charitable motives, always assume this. No one likes to have their character attacked, particularly when they know that they are not deserving of such an attack. Even if we do not attack one’s character verbally in our discussion, we may still be doing so in our minds as the conversation progresses (or regresses). It is important that we focus on the person’s claims and arguments for the claims rather than their motives because their motives logically have no bearing on the truth of their claims.

Further, when we assume good will, we are more willing to understand where someone is coming from. When we understand where they are coming from, it gives us an opportunity to address a deeper concern that they have with our opposing view- we can offer them a logically, rationally, and evidentially supported alternative that takes into account their deeper commitment. When we understand that the other person ultimately has good intentions, it allows us to show kindness while we speak and defend truth. In his book “Before You Hit SEND: Preventing Headache and Heartache,” Emerson Eggerichs lists out the important reasons why kindness in controversial topic discussions is vital:

“Kindness eases others, which enables them to hear the substance of our concern. Kindness demonstrates and builds trust. Kindness affects the emotions, which is key when seeking to inform or persuade. Kindness maintains a relationship, and relationship determines response. My communication kindly demonstrates who God is.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #4: Listen To Understand

Listening is vital to the discussion. If we are truly there to defend a position and, hopefully, convince the other person that our view more closely matches reality than the one they presently believe, we have to be able to properly understand their current view. It does us no good to argue against a view that the person does not hold. If we have soundly defeated a view and offered ours as an alternative, but the view that we have defeated is not what the other person holds, we have not given them a reason to abandon their view in favor of ours. We’ve given them reasons to not accept that other view, yes, but we have not given the reason to change from the view that they currently hold. Listening takes patience. We cannot always be eager to sneak in a rhetorical jab or present the next logical “gotcha!” We need to focus on what the other person is saying in order to understand to ensure that what we are about to present actually addresses and applies to their claims.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #5: Ask Honest Questions

One of the great ways to listen is not just being quiet and focusing but asking clarifying questions. Questions like “what do you mean by that,” or “how do you get from X to Y in your logical thinking” helps us to learn about other views and the reasons why people hold those views. Asking honest questions in order to learn demonstrates that we are willing to consider and engage other views (Tip #1) as they actually are rather caricatures of those views.
Some people may have even considered the views that they espouse more deeply. Foundations and implications may not have crossed their minds. This is also where asking honest questions can be helpful. Jonathan Morrow speaks to the wisdom of asking questions:

“People may not ask…questions of their own beliefs or think carefully about the way they view the world, but they still have a worldview. And it affects every area of their lives. Every person–knowingly or not– filters the information that enters their minds through their worldview. They then make sense of that information based on their worldview. This process is automatic and the filtered information shapes their beliefs and influences how they function in society, including the smallest decisions they make.”

Asking honest questions demonstrates to the other person respect and demonstrates a spirit of humility a heart of a student. Listen, understand, and appropriately critique in a loving and kind manner. I will refer you to both of the books already mentioned above for more on this tip.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #6: Get Your Facts Right

This cannot be emphasized enough. It is important that our claims match reality, meaning that we need to get our facts right. This affects the persuasiveness of our presentation in multiple ways. First, if we do not have our facts right, then any conclusions that we draw from those incorrect claims will be questionable. We simply cannot use false claims about reality to come to true conclusions about reality. It is not logical, and no one would be reasonable to accept a conclusion that is dependent upon something false for its truth.

Second, when we do not have our facts right, it appears that we do not value truth enough to verify claims. This could be because we are gullible, lazy, or simply just want to believe that our conclusion is true, so we’re looking for any confirmation of it. When we do not check the claims we make for truth before we use them to persuade someone to our view, it demonstrates that we are more committed to a view than to what is true.

Third, if we value a particular view over what is true, why should anyone trust us about anything else that we claim? Getting our facts right is not just an issue of making a sound argument, but an issue of personal character and trust. If we do not take the time to investigate our claims before using them, we should not be trusted. I’ll quote Eggerichs again, here:

“Perhaps in many cases we didn’t know it was untrue. No harm, no foul. Even so, an honest error in judgment does not make it okay, especially when we repeatedly make such mistakes. The real point here is to the lazy and neglectful individuals who keep making mistakes and claim they did not know the truth. They may be innocent, but one becomes guilty of carelessness and inattentiveness. We must aggressively get our facts straight to avoid a routine of ‘honest’ mistakes.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #7: Avoid or Qualify Speculation

Part of getting our facts straight is to communicate the difference between what we understand to be facts and what we are speculating about what those facts mean for the future. Speculation can get quite emotional because it tends towards two extremes: either a “best-case scenario” or a “worst-case scenario.” The first gives people a utopianistic feeling and expectation. The second gives people a fearful feeling and expectation. Both of those are strong drivers of strong action and rhetoric, but they are only founded in speculation. We do not want to give someone a false impression and cause them to react according to that falsehood.

Speculations about all sorts of things take place in conversations, but it seems that speculations about future events and individuals’ motives tend to be the most damaging. Obviously, no one can see the future. We can certainly look to history and notice a pattern of certain conditions preceding or coinciding with certain events, but because we are not omniscient and may be overlooking an key condition that may change the whole outcome, speculating about the future needs to be done carefully and with qualification. Some people may choose to just avoid it altogether.

Obviously, too, no one can see the heart of another individual. When we speculate about the “pure evil” or “purely altruistic” motives someone may have for defending a particular political policy or view of the world, we tread on dangerous territory here, as well. We do not want to be guilty of encouraging character assassinations or character glorifications. The character of a person has no logical bearing on the truth of their claims, so we need to focus not on their character but on the claims being made to argue for or against their truth. It is wise to simply avoid speculating about motivations for holding a particular view.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #8: Learn to Use Reason Well

Communicating truth to those we wish to persuade is only part of the discussion. The other important part is using truths together to come to reasonable and true conclusions and to avoid using truths together to come to unreasonable and false conclusions. We may present a series of true statements, but if we present them together in such a way that they do not connect logically, then we run the risk of believing and promoting unreasonable or false conclusions. We also run the risk of being unable to identify where another’s reasoning has gone wrong even though we know that their conclusion is incorrect.

Norman Geisler describes logic like this:

“Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking.”

Going back to speculation for a moment: Speculation often results from the mistakes using of true claims to support implications that do not follow. The reciprocal error is made, as well: an implication (conclusion) that either necessarily follows from the true propositions and the valid reasoning or true propositions when taken together yield a high probability of or are all best explained by an implication are accused of being speculation. This error often results from the misunderstanding of logic and mistakes in thinking. But when true claims are used correctly, logic is understood correctly and we adjust our thinking to match both, both errors regarding the acceptance of speculations and rejection of implications can be avoided.

There are numerous fallacious ways to reason using true claims that will lead us and others to false conclusions. We need to learn not only how to use logic (connect true claims together) correctly, but we also need to learn how to avoid fallacies in our attempts to connect one true claim to another true claim. When we learn these, we not only can guard our communication, guide our discussion, and clearly present our case, but we can also analyze others’ claims and be able to respectfully and lovingly ask questions that will guide the other person to see the error that they are making.

As a bonus, learning to reason well gives the first tip I offered in this post (recognize that you could be wrong) a solid and reasonable foundation. The first tip is not a call to be malleable in your thinking simply because we don’t want to offend or we all want to get along; it is a call to recognize that we all hold wrong beliefs about this world and that those wrong beliefs can be positively identified, removed from our worldview, and replaced with true beliefs about the world. Learning to reason well gives us the tools to adjust our beliefs to match reality and to communicate that knowledge to others. Finally, if you want to learn how to reason well, I highly recommend the book “Come, Let Us Reason” by Norman Geisler for its introductory view of logic that is easy to follow for anyone who desires to learn.

Marx Attacks!

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Phil Bair

If I were to ask you who the most influential philosopher of the 21st Century is, what would your answer be? The correct answer might surprise you.

It is Karl Marx.

Karl Marx believed that class struggle would occur naturally on its own without the help of any social engineer. He believed the Communist Revolution was the inevitable outcome of socio-economic forces, and it was only a matter of time.

He was wrong.

The marxists of today believe in the class struggle, just like Marx did in his day. Except that now, the new Marxists recognize that it won’t naturally happen on its own. They have forged a new agenda to bring about a social revolution similar to the one Marx imagined. Except this time the intended outcome will be a cultural and social revolution they hope to control through deliberate measures rather than an unpredictable result left to chance.

A Worldview and its Weapon

A study of this cultural marxism can be summarized as the movement to apply classical marxist ideas of economic class struggle to cultural classes and identities primarily based on proportionality. The majority classes (e.g., white anglo-saxon male, cisgender Christians) are seen as oppressive just because they are the majority. Minorities are seen as oppressed just because they are minorities. Power is perceived as an automatic property of having greater numbers in your group, and that alleged power is always seen as villainy.

Whenever you see and hear people use language like “American racism,” or “systemic racism,” or “American original sin,” or any other expression of built-in institutional or structural bias cited as the cause of socio-economic disparities, cultural marxism is behind it. It is blaming imaginary policies and systems for what it sees as institutional discrimination rather than identifying the real causes of the disparities. It is the myth that the whole system is rigged against minorities and in favor of the “privileged.” It is the idea that what was institutional discrimination in the past still exists, despite the fact that Jim Crow laws and the earlier scourge of slavery have been eradicated. It is blaming society for disadvantages rooted in individual dysfunction and/or cultural pathology.

The left-wing marxist soldiers are engaged in a systematic and widespread attack on Western Civilization. They use an insidious tool known as “critical theory” to accomplish their objectives. It is important to understand that despite having the word “theory” in its name, critical theory is not technically a worldview or an ideology. It is a methodology. It functions as a weapon designed to torpedo social frameworks that are healthy and beneficial for all mankind. The worldview behind the methodology of critical theory (cultural marxism) sees those frameworks as evil and oppressive. Critical theory poisons the minds of those in society against those frameworks and deceives them into thinking they should be dismantled and replaced by an anti-Christian collectivist framework that becomes the true oppressor and destroys the freedom and rights of God’s image-bearers. Critical theory is not the ideology itself, but the blueprint for aggression and activism that is designed to pulverize the existing social fabric and establish the new order the marxist ideology visualizes.

The weapons of the critical theory include challenges from radical feminism, identity politics, the weaponization of homosexuality and transgenderism, and the accusations of systemic racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, and evangelical religious oppression. The battle is waged against what they view as the establishment of “whiteness.” The Equinsu Ocha, the white devil, is the enemy, and has to be destroyed at all costs in order to bring about social justice and cultural transformation.

The strategy? Criticize, demonize, disrupt, divide, and destabilize Western society and its institutions by cultivating resentment and grievance culture so that they can be dismantled more easily and a new social order can replace them. The criticism and accusations of critical theory don’t have to be true, and they rarely are. Truth doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the marxist narrative, to be accepted as dogma through blind ideological conformity. Critical theory seeks to turn people against each other by fostering tribal warfare and victim culture. It stirs up hatred and animosity based on false narratives people have been brainwashed in for decades in our colleges and universities.

One of the largest flaming arrows critical theory has been shooting at us over the last few years is the idea that evangelical Christians have abandoned the Gospel to embrace a power-centered “right-wing” political agenda. We are told that our efforts to promote the Kingdom of God in this life and in our society have been co-opted by a fawning devotion to the spiritually and morally problematic “orange man” occupying the White House. (And by the way, it’s called the “White House.” Hello? The White House.) The purpose of this accusation is to shame and intimidate us into silence when it comes to speaking into our current socio-political climate. After all, we are subordinate to the Son of God, not the Republican Party. This has taught us to avoid politics in the church so as not to offend those in the laity whom the marxist ideology has infected, and to avoid any potential divisiveness taking a stand may cause. Very clever.

The reality is, God is the author of all truth. Truth always has political implications, whether we like it or not. Therefore to avoid politics is to avoid truth. To avoid truth is to ignore the author of all truth: God. Which group of people are terrified of getting political more than any other, and which community avoids it like the plague with unrelenting tenacity? The church. Take your time.

The easiest way to establish a new order is to silence the most vocal opponents of that order. Social engineering is just as much about silencing dissent as indoctrinating the credulous. Critical theory has had overwhelming success in this regard.

Marxism vs Freedom

What does this new social order look like? No classes. No racial “inequality.” No “oppression.” No white “privilege.” No wealth or income, “inequality.” Absolute uniformity of outcome through the coercive power of the state. No dissent. No opposing ideas. Utopia.

Oh, and by the way, no freedom. Free people are at liberty to think and speak as they wish, based on their convictions, and this is not allowed. Nothing contrary to the marxist narrative of class ideology is permitted, no intolerance of the state ideology will be tolerated.

Every outcome is equalized through force. The state is greater than the individual, and until the revolution is complete, people will be treated and judged according to their class, not as stand-alone human beings created in the image of God. If you are white, you are privileged, and you are damned in the name of social justice. Whether you enjoy any personal “privilege” or not, and whether you are personally racist or not, you are guilty, privileged, and racist anyway — period. None of the details about who you are as a person matter. The only thing that matters is that you belong to the white class, and therefore you are a target.

It is almost impossible to dislodge this ideology from its acolytes. The false accusations carried into our minds by the pathological vector called critical theory are so deeply embedded and so thoroughly pervasive in our society that they have been elevated to the status of axiomatic certitude. Anyone who challenges these presuppositions is seen as a drooling hateful neanderthal and will be treated as a pariah. The mechanism to silence dissent is known as “political correctness.” You are not allowed to question the narrative nor attempt to refute it by speaking the truth. Truth is offensive. This is what happens when myth has been implanted in the minds of multitudes of people through indoctrination (from the entertainment industry, the media, and academia) and repetition for so long that people are no longer capable of seeing the world any other way.

The Infected Church

Now this poison has invaded the Body of Christ. Untold numbers of Christians are redefining the principles of their faith to conform to the agenda of social justice rather than personal redemption. The Gospel articulates and endorses a well-defined concept of true justice. But it stands in sharp contrast to the false justice in modern marxist ideology that now has so much of the Church in its death grip.

The monolithic ideology of “white guilt” is wreaking havoc in the Church by pressuring white Christians into “apologizing” for things they didn’t do, and to adopt an attitude of self-condemnation as a means to redeem themselves before the judgment seat of social justice. It comes in the form of progressives (which are now almost identical to marxists) insisting on whites becoming “woke” to their alleged implicit racial bias and defining themselves by their newly enlightened status as pathetic inferiors.

The most virulent lie in the arsenal of critical theory in our present moment is the idea of systemic racism, belief in which is a form of mental illness (a mind detached from reality). Those who are brainwashed by it will attack you like rabid animals if you so much as question their holy article of faith or offer evidence that systemic racism doesn’t exist. Facts don’t matter. The only thing that counts is subjective interpretation of personal experience guided by junk ideology. That is why they spray such toxic venom at their own black brothers and sisters who are trying to teach them a different way of understanding their condition — a way that embraces the truth. For them to admit, that possibility would force them to stop blaming their favorite scapegoat (whiteness), and to honestly examine the real roots of their suffering.

Make no mistake: those who believe in the lie of systemic racism have no desire to see that alleged racism eradicated — ever. If it did exist, and if it came to an end, their precious grievance culture and celebration of their own victimhood would cease to exist. They must believe it’s true, and they will never believe otherwise. The accusation of racism toward whites is what they live for. It is what nourishes and sustains them. That their psychotic security blanket could ever be taken from them is unthinkable. Do not believe for a second that movements like Black Lies Matter really care about black lives or true justice. They only care about one thing: the obliteration of the foundations of Western Civilization. Their web site speaks of dissolving the nuclear family. Their leaders openly inform us they are trained marxists. Their marches advocate deadly violence against the police. Meanwhile, they ignore the over 300,000 black victims of homicide at the hands of other blacks over the last 40 years. The only time they protest and riot against the loss of a precious black life is when it occurs at the hands of the police. And they don’t give a flying rat’s patoot whether it was justified or not. I repeat: they don’t care about black lives — at all. Black Lies Matter is a race-baiting hate group, and the only thing that matters to them is the perpetual decomposition of our society. They are the most high profile puppets of critical theory you can possibly find.

Conclusion

This is the essence of the attack of left-wing marxist pathology in our society. It has achieved the lofty status of a militant social cult. It has already destroyed Europe, and we are next in line. The invasion has already begun. The most tragic aspect of all this is that gullible Christians, especially the millennial variety, have been brainwashed into the new marxist ideology and are busy helping the left do the dirty work of destabilizing American society, and worst of all, invading the Body of Christ like a metastasizing flesh-eating disease that is exterminating the true Gospel of Christ and replacing it with a demonic substitute.

Christian Naivety is Harming the Church’s Engagement with Today’s Culture

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

I had no idea my last article, “5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Culture Moment,” would resonate with so many—it’s been liked and shared over 250,000 times to date (!). Although I no longer leave comments open on my site (I just don’t have the time to moderate and respond), I had the opportunity to observe a flurry of conversation threads on social media related to what I had written. Those conversations threads generated all kinds of ideas for future articles, but the one that pressed on me most over the last few weeks was this one.

As I considered the types of pushback I received from some fellow believers (not skeptics!), I started to realize that their comments had little to do with the facts, logic, or manner in which I wrote that particular article. Rather, they were the same kinds of reactions I’ve see to any post other Christians, or I write involving a call to better discernment in the church. Articles of this nature are often met with the same types of broad pushback about 1) the need for love, 2) the need for action, 3) the need to not be fearful, and 4) the need for unity (the implication being that these things are all somehow in tension with discernment).

I want to show today why there’s a certain biblical naivety in such comments—one that actually harms the church’s ability and opportunity to effectively engage with culture.

1. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and love.

This, perhaps, is one of the greatest naiveties in the church today. If you have anything to say that is perceived to be negative, there will be plenty of Christians ready to tell you you’re not being loving. Others won’t directly make that accusation but will instead point out that they’re “just going to keep on loving people,” as if it’s impossible to offer truth while loving people.

Now, there are certainly times when Christians deliver truth in unloving ways. That’s a whole other conversation. But what I’m addressing here is the aversion some Christians have to any sort of statement that suggests a person, group, or action is wrong from a biblical perspective. In a lot of cases, those Christians even agree that the person/group/action is wrong, but they think there’s a negative tradeoff between drawing attention to our disagreement and being loving.

Please hear me out: It is not more loving, biblically speaking, for Christians to be a group of Pollyannas in a hostile culture. It’s naïve.

Jesus didn’t create the church to be an endless source of warm fuzzies to the world around us. That approach may draw some people to some version of Christianity, but it won’t be a Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus himself. As Christians, we’re called to be salt and light in the world. But how can we “preserve” God’s message when we refuse to share what He’s said in the name of our own definition of love—one rooted in either comfortable silence or superficial niceties? Surely, this is not a biblical love for others, as I explained in my last post. A biblical love is one that loves others in the context of what it first means to love God.

Furthermore, it’s extremely naïve to think that the more we look like the world—cheerfully glossing over the worldview differences that should drive our thinking and living—the more people will seek Jesus. Why seek Jesus when who He is and what He taught apparently makes no tangible difference in the lives of Christians, other than that they (sometimes) go to church on Sundays and pray in the quiet of their homes? How does this challenge people to consider the radical claims that Jesus was God himself, has authority over our lives, made reconciliation with our Creator possible through his sacrifice on the cross, was supernaturally raised from the dead, and is our only hope for eternal life?

It doesn’t.

We can keep on smiling and nodding along with culture, but let’s not be deluded that we’re doing Jesus any favors with complacency in the name of “love.”

2. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and action.

I received several well-meaning comments and messages in response to my article suggesting that what Christians need to be focusing on right now is how to help those who are suffering due to inequality and discrimination…not on being critical of how people are doing that. In other words, don’t worry about the underlying (neo-Marxist) worldview of an organization like Black Lives Matter, just jump in and serve alongside of them—why can’t we all just work together, even if we have some disagreements?

To be clear, I didn’t say or imply that Christians should never work side-by-side with nonbelievers. That would be ridiculous. Once again, however, nuance is called for. There are many non-Christian organizations in the world working toward causes that Christians should care about as much as non-Christians, and in ways that don’t conflict with a Christian worldview. If we want to help save an endangered species side-by-side with an organization that assumes a naturalistic worldview (in which that species developed through blind, purposeless chance), there’s probably not an issue. Our approaches and end goals, in that case, can align despite divergent underlying worldviews.

But what if a non-Christian organization seeks to achieve a common goal using approaches in conflict with a Christian worldview?

And what if it turns out that what we think is a common goal is only superficially in common? That when we dig deeper, we find out that we may be using similar words but have a wildly different ending vision in mind?

This is exactly the issue in the case of Christians and the BLM organization. BLM’s specific vision and desired policy approaches for getting there are decidedly hostile to a Christian worldview. Al Mohler does a good job of explaining why in this article, so I’ll encourage you to click here for further explanation if you’re unfamiliar with the issues.

As Mohler says, “Black Lives Matter did not emerge merely as a sentence. Those three words function as a message and a platform making a significant political statement—one guided by a Marxist ideology that seeks to revolutionize our culture and society.”

And to be sure, the label of “Marxist ideology” is not something being unfairly thrust upon BLM. You can see a video here of BLM founder Patrisse Cullors assuring her interviewer that the group has an underlying ideology: “We’re trained Marxists.”

I have no doubt that Christians are well-meaning when they say they just want to get involved and do something to show their concern and support for the black community. But the choice isn’t BLM or nothing, and pointing out major issues with BLM doesn’t imply an encouragement to do nothing! (As just one alternative, you can bring training to your church on how to better support biblical justice through the latest efforts of the Center for Biblical Unity.)

Discernment must go hand-in-hand with action. If we’re unaware of how our actions are working toward a society opposed to our fundamental beliefs, we’re just naïve lambs being led to the slaughter. Well-meaning Christians may not realize it along the way, but make no mistake…those leading the lambs most certainly do.

3. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and fear.

Another common response I see to articles written about the distinction between biblical and non-biblical thinking is that the activity of discernment is inherently fear-based.

“Do we really have to fear anything that isn’t explicitly Christian?”

“Why are you scared of people who believe differently?”

It’s unfortunate and sad when Christians think that the motivation behind discernment is somehow rooted in fear, as common statements like these assume. When someone attempts to clarify the line between biblical and non-biblical thinking, they’re not “scared” of what others believe or suggesting that there can be no common ground at all; they’re illuminating important differences because Christians should be able to see clearly enough to guard God’s truth from error (1 Tim. 4:16).

As Christians, we should be concerned when the lines between biblical and secular thinking are becoming so muddled in the minds of many believers that we’re losing our ability to impact culture. But concern isn’t some kind of unhinged emotional response that’s anxiously scrambling to get people to see your way because you’re afraid you’re losing a battle (the idea I think people have in mind when they make statements like the examples here). We know how the battle ends, but we’re called to preserve and fight for truth in the meantime. To not do so because we assume discernment is rooted in fear is a naivety about the need to think and live differently than the secular world. It’s a failure to understand just how different a biblical worldview and all of its implications for our lives really are.

4. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and unity.

Finally, another common refrain from Christians when discernment-related questions are raised is that those questions cause “division” in the body of Christ. The basic idea is that we need to prioritize unity over differences.

But take that thinking to the extreme: Should we align ourselves with Christians who think blowing up buildings is “biblical”? Of course not. I can’t imagine that the same people who comment about our need for unity would say we should. We all recognize that a line must be drawn at some point. The problem is that many Christians are subjectively drawing that line based on cultural comfort rather than biblical direction.

In Ephesians 4:11–15, Paul tells Christians to speak the truth in love rather than being like infants “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching.” The result, he says, is that we will “grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”

Discernment is part of spiritual maturity.

Paul speaks to the importance of sound doctrine in his instructions to Timothy as well: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:2–4)

The Bible in no way suggests that we are to accept all ideas put forth in the name of Christ as equally valid or to remain silent. Championing a superficial unity to avoid working through disagreement naively allows many harmful ideas to infiltrate the church. [For help talking about this with your kids, see Part 2 in Talking with Your Kids about Jesus.]

In sending out his twelve disciples, Jesus said, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Just as today, the world the disciples would be preaching to was hostile to their message. Jesus’s command to them was to navigate what they would encounter by being shrewd—having “sharp powers of judgment,” as the dictionary defines it. We, too, should be both shrewd and innocent, but we’ve lost a lot of that balance to the naïve confusions I described here.

How do we fix it? That will be the subject of my next article.

Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

“We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.”

“It is critical to recognize that the founders [of America] were pledging their lives to restore not someone’s revealed religion, but everyone’s self-evident morality.”

“It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believe in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.”

“The Moral Law actually is clear to everyone. It is evident by a person’s reactions rather than by his or her actions.“

“The Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”

“The moral rightness or wrongness of a law is not determined by whether its enforcement is successful or unsuccessful…We’ve always found it difficult to enforce a number of our laws, including laws against murder, spouse and child abuse, rape, and theft, yet no sane person would ever suggest that these laws should be repealed because they’re difficult to enforce.”

“[Rights] should not be based on what people do, but on what is right as defined by the Moral Law. In other words, by definition, laws are prescriptive—they prescribe what ought to be done, while behaviors are descriptive—they describe what is being done. If everyone were to commit murder that wouldn’t make murder right. And it certainly wouldn’t be wise to discard all laws against murder because enforcement is difficult.”

“Most people are law-abiding citizens who don’t require someone constantly looking over their shoulder to keep them in line. In other words, the law, aside from law enforcement, has a certain restraining effect in itself. So when immoral behavior is legalized (the restraining effect of the law is removed), that behavior eventually loses its stigma of immorality. This is because many believe that whatever is legal is moral. That’s why legalization only result in more immoral behavior.”

“The history of abortion, like that of slavery and Prohibition, shows that laws can change hearts and attitudes when given enough time.”

“Even though many laws are difficult to enforce, most people obey them without the continuous presence of law enforcement. But since many believe that whatever is legal is moral, legalization of immorality will only result in more immoral behavior.”

“When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals.”

“A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. The former is descriptive, the latter is prescriptive.

“The Moral Law tells [atheists] intuitively that genocide is wrong. But they can’t appeal to the Moral Law to justify their belief because acknowledging the Moral Law would logically mean acknowledging the existence of the Moral Law-giver.”

“If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government–murder, torture, and abuse.”

“Large-scale evolution is not only a theory that affects how one looks at things in the biology lab; it has a dramatic impact on government, philosophy, law, and ethics, as well.”

“The [First] Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or denomination, but…it logically cannot prohibit Congress from establishing a national morality.”

“Allowing the [Supreme] Court to read their own meaning into the Constitution defeats the whole purpose of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

“If an unelected tribunal of judges can pour any interpretation they desire into a law, then the intentions of the people expressed in that law can be frustrated and usurped. The law ultimately means nothing if its original intent is not honored. Stop signs are useless if drivers are free to interpret them as ‘Go!'”

“While the Bible does not call for its political imposition on civil governments, it does call for those who believe in the Bible to be politically active.”

“The Bible does not command Christians to set up a Christian America; it simply commands them to help create a moral America.”

“What the Left really means when it asserts relativism is that all traditional absolutes are relative—their new absolutes are the only true absolutes. Reasonable people know better.”

“If we continue to let the Supreme Court and the Left suppress the Moral Law morality from our public life, our country is not likely to survive the evil that will continue to grow within it.”

“Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”

“The truth of the objective Moral Law is most clearly seen by analyzing the tangled rhetoric of those who ignore it.”

“A Moral Law government avoids the intolerance of a purely religious government and the moral relativism of a purely secular government.”

“As history has proven, again and again, human beings have an unfailing propensity to suppress the Moral Law when that law gets in the way of their desire for pleasure, power, or property.”

“Today, our moral positions are more often fueled by feelings and emotions than by careful thought.”

“As a society, we rightfully discriminate against all kinds of harmful behaviors (e.g., drunk driving, theft, rape, etc.) regardless of the fact that some people may have been ‘born’ with a propensity to commit those crimes.”

“Even if we are ‘born’ heterosexual or homosexual, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct. While we may have strong desires, our conduct is not mandatory. A choice must still be made.

“The fundamental problem in our world is that people willingly choose to do things that deep down they know they shouldn’t do. The fact that we’re all flawed to some extent—is precisely the reason we need a system of laws in our society.”

“We are not saying that all women who have abortions are murderers but victims themselves, deceived by the euphemisms of the abortion propaganda machine.”

“If the ‘pro-choicers’ were truly ‘pro-choice’, they would invite pro-life advocates to their meetings and into their clinics. After all, life is the only other choice a woman can make. Instead, pro-abortion advocates greet pro-lifers with court orders to keep as far away as possible. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind. The other choice isn’t good for business.”

“No one has the moral right to choose anything that directly ends the life of another innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Without life, we’d all have no rights whatsoever.”

“Because of the legality of abortion, family and friends often feel free to pressure women into killing their babies when they wouldn’t otherwise do so.”

“When the [Supreme] Court ignores the intent of a particular law, it is ignoring the will of the people. Instead of the people governing themselves, they are governed by the imposed will of unelected judges. That’s not representative democracy, that’s closer to tyranny.”

“[Some men with whom women are sexually active] favor abortion because it frees them of what would normally be a long-range responsibility. In effect, abortion makes women more susceptible to predatory males who want to use women for sex but aren’t really interested in making long-term commitments to them.”

“All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.”

“It is precisely because humans are not animals that we do not kill them in difficult situations. That is, since we believe human life has a higher value than that of animals, we do not treat humans like laboratory rats. Moreover, human beings don’t lose their value when they lose their health. People are valuable because of their humanity, not because they lack an infirmity.”

“Laws favoring abortion impose values on the life of the unborn; pro-life laws impose values on the liberty of the mother. In other words, the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, while the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby.”

“If money made people happy, the United States would be the happiest place on earth. Instead, we lead the world in indicators of unhappiness such as suicide, drug use, and divorce.”

“Money without morality leads to the kind of materialistic madness we’ve been experiencing. We have everything to live with and nothing to live by.”

“How can those responsible for legislating morality do so when they have trouble discerning right from wrong? Are such people really qualified to make decisions of the highest moral consequences?”

“Why won’t those who use immoral means to get what they want in their private lives use immoral means to get what they want in their public lives? Those who refuse to restrain their appetites in private are unlikely to resist the enormous temptation to abuse their political power to get what they want (and to use that power to cover up their ‘private’ indiscretions).”

“When the ideal is not realizable, then we should legislate the optimum achievable within the existing conditions. That is when the maximum is not possible, we should not settle for the minimum but should legislate the optimum.”

All these quotes came from Drs. Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s book Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible. Check out the full chapter-by-chapter review of the book and other featured posts:

5 Casualties of the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

“Sex” in civil rights law now legally means sexual orientation or whatever gender you think you are. That’s the result of a surprising Supreme Court decision (Bostock vs. Clayton County) from Justice Neil Gorsuch. Problem? Yes, here are five casualties of this ruling:

We the People: If you think you have the ability to govern yourselves through your elected representatives, the United States Supreme Court again made a mockery of that Constitutional principle. You can work to elect the right people and pass all the laws you want, only to see a handful of unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court nullify or replace your laws with their own.

That’s what six justices did this week. They changed the 1964 civil rights law into a law that they desired, despite the fact that the very changes they made have been rejected by Congress in recent years. Now, just like that, “sex” no longer means biological sex but sexual orientation and whatever a person thinks their sex is at the time.

As Justices Alito and Thomas wrote in dissent, there’s only one word for what the Court did: “legislation.” “A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

Now, many actually agree with the result (it has some big negatives I’ll get to in a minute). But the means by which this result was achieved should disturb everyone because it strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and our rights as people to govern ourselves. It’s an injustice for judges to impose their legislative will on the people. If judges want to change the law, then they should do what any citizen has to do—convince fellow citizens to go through the legislative process to get the law changed. To merely impose their will on the people is tyranny.

Women: Justice Gorsuch’s opinion furthers the Leftist claim that sex is defined not by biology, but by one’s state of mind. Therefore, if a man thinks he’s a woman, then the law must treat him as a woman. Although Gorsuch tries to deny this result, what he’s done is given legal grounds for biological men to gain a legal advantage over actual women in the workplace, in the bathroom, and elsewhere.

Ladies, you want that promotion? All other things being equal, who do you think your employer is now going to promote—you or the man transitioning to a woman who now has heightened legal grounds as an even smaller minority to sue for “discrimination”?

Do you want privacy and safety in the bathroom and showering facilities? What policy is your employer or gym going to adopt—the common sense one where biological men and women are kept separate, or the one that prevents a costly discrimination suit by inviting men into women’s facilities?

LGBTQ People: Gorsuch has not just made it harder for women; his reasoning contradicts the very rationale for the existence of women and the LGBTQ people he’s supposedly trying to help. For when someone identifies as a woman, man, lesbian or gay, they are presupposing there is such a thing as objective biological sex. How else can one have sex with someone of the same sex unless one can differentiate that person from the opposite sex? And how can a man transition into becoming a woman unless men and women actually exist?

The practical outcome of the Court’s opinion is that either one’s biology or psychology can determine one’s sex. But if a person’s subjective psychology usurps their objective biology, then there is no objective way of identifying anyone as a man, woman, or LGBTQ. Sex and sexual identity are just figments of the imagination (much like Gorsuch’s justification for his opinion).

That’s why some lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and feminists have been against the subjective transgender psychology standard that Gorsuch just affirmed—it defines them out of existence!

96% of the Population: Ask anyone in corporate America this question: Are you more likely to experience problems at work for supporting LGBTQ political goals or opposing them? It’s not even close, as I found out personally.

HR departments in corporate America are proponents of everything LGBTQ, and those who identify as such are actually better off than their straight counterparts. LGBTQ households, on average, earn more than traditional households, and gay men earn 10% more than straight men. While there are individual exceptions (hence the lawsuit that brought this case to the Supreme Court), there appears to be NO systemic problem of anti-LGBTQ bias in the workplace.

Yet, this Court’s decision will employ the strong arm of government to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. The decision will force companies to give employment preference to a long list of sexual orientations that, at best, 4% of people claim (a 4% that already has a financial advantage). Anyone who claims an LGBTQ identity will now have more job security than John or Jane Doe. How so? Because if a company has to downsize, who are they going choose—one of the helpless Doe’s, or the person of a new legally-preferenced minority who can bring a costly lawsuit alleging “discrimination”?

While reverse discrimination may not be the intent of this decision, it is an inevitable consequence. As soon as you give preferential treatment to one group of people, you are automatically disadvantaging anyone not part of that group.

Moreover, there isn’t any medical consensus as to what sexual orientation or transgenderism is. But the effect of this decision is that businesses are now forced to give preference to those who identify as “ambigender; bigender; blurgender; collgender; conflictgender; cosmicgender; crystagender; deliciagender; duragender; demiflux; domgender; fissgender; gemelgender; gendercluster; genderfluid; gendersea; genderfuzz; genderfractal; genderspiral; genderswirl; gendervex; gyaragender; libragender; ogligender; pangender; polygender; trigender (whatever that all means). How is it possible to even know you’re in compliance if you can’t define what compliance is? How many young workers will claim one of these nebulous labels just to get an advantage? (Their claims for special treatment can’t be objectively disproven like Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be a Native American.)

In short, this decision doesn’t fix an existing workplace problem (thankfully, LGBTQ folks are doing quite well). Instead, it creates legal and administrative chaos, and it legally justifies reverse discrimination against an already underperforming 96% of the population. That’s anything but “equality.”

Religious Freedom: If any group is being discriminated against in corporate America, it is Christians and other conservatives who are hiding under their desks for fear of being outed, excluded, and shamed by the “inclusion and diversity” police. Are their First Amendment rights now nullified? How about Christian, Muslim, and Jewish schools: are they now forced to hire teachers and administrators who contradict their natural law and scriptural views of proper sexual behavior? Will religious people now need special permission from the Supreme Court to live as if there are two genders created for one another?

Judge Gorsuch says those questions are for another case. Given his faulty reasoning skills and legislative impulses, in this case, I’m not optimistic he’ll respect reason or the Constitution the next time either.

Warnings To A Godless Society

What Have We Become?

The Struggle For Power

What Will We Become?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Affirm The Divine Image

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

Be People Of Love

Be Like Their Family

Find Our Identity In Christ

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Case For Life

Tell And Show

Repercussions

Seeing Is Believing

One Thousand Words

The Power To Persuade

Thoughtful And Effective

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #1: You Could Be Wrong

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #2: Find Common Ground

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #3: Assume Good Will

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #4: Listen To Understand

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #5: Ask Honest Questions

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #6: Get Your Facts Right

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #7: Avoid or Qualify Speculation

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #8: Learn to Use Reason Well

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Worldview and its Weapon

Marxism vs Freedom

The Infected Church

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and love.

2. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and action.

3. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and fear.

4. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and unity.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.**

**Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.**

**Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.**