Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

In this post, we’re asking the question: How should Christians think about the Transgender Movement? In many respects, this is a difficult question to answer because the movement is constantly in flux and definitions frequently change. Be that as it may, Christians must do their best to engage Transgenderism from a biblical worldview.

God’s Good Creation

From the outset, we must acknowledge that Transgenderism was not part of God’s pre-fallen creation. Not only did God create both male and female as a complementary pair, his assessment of his creation was that “it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Both male and female, image-bearers of God, in perfect fellowship with God and each other.

In addition to their harmony with God and each other, both man and woman had perfect harmony with their bodies. Genesis 2:25 tells us that “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” No disgust or confusion existed in humanity’s gender identity. They were comfortable in their own skin. So much so, that nudity was an afterthought.

Corruption Of Sin

Sadly, paradise was lost. Man and woman chose to usurp the lordship of God and declare themselves to be their own lords. Instead of submitting to God’s good direction, they carved out a new one for themselves. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing the same thing ever since — defying God’s authority and calling our own shots.

Immediately after the first humans sinned, the way they interacted with the world shifted dramatically. Genesis 3:7 reports this shift: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Before the fall, naked and unashamed. After the fall, bodily shame.

They experienced this shame, not simply because their bodies began a long journey of decay, but because sin ransacked their minds. Jeremiah says it most succinctly, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). As a result, we can’t always trust our thoughts and feelings because sin has corrupted them.

At root, this is the underlying cause of the Transgender movement. We are a people who have been so radically affected by sin’s corruption, that we’ve become uncomfortable with our own bodies. This is especially the case for Transgender individuals who experience gender dysphoria.

Definitions

In order to think biblically about the Transgender Movement, we must have a basic understanding of the following definitions:1

Sex — Refers to one’s biological makeup and composition (XX or XY chromosome).

Gender Identity — A person’s self-perception of whether they are male or female (or something else entirely).

Gender Dysphoria — A mismatch between the gender that matched one’s biological sex and the gender one feels oneself to be.

Cisgender — A term used to refer to people who have a match between their biological sex and their personal gender identity.

Transgender — A term used to refer to individuals who identify or express a gender identity that does not match their biological sex.

The Perfect Storm

In order for Transgenderism to gain a footing in western culture, several factors had to coalesce to provide the proper soil for the movement to sprout.2 The first factor is the culture’s embrace of relativism. Relativism is the view that objective truth does not exist. Instead, everyone experiences their own individual truth. Hence, phrases such as “you can’t tell me what to do” or “you live your truth and I’ll live mine” pervade the cultural landscape.

Another factor is our post-Christian society. It’s no surprise that our culture is running away from its Christian roots at a rapid pace. While residual effects still linger, the dominating forces our our culture — the university, the media, and the entertainment industry — are increasingly leading us away from Christianity’s influence.

A third factor is our embrace of the sexual revolution. With the rise of no-fault divorce, the pill, and the separation of sex from procreation in general, western culture has embraced the mantra “if it feels good, do it.” That is to say, no sexual boundaries exist anymore except a consenting partner.

And fourth, a gnostic view of reality undergirds the Transgender Movement. The ancient heresy of gnosticism taught that the physical world is evil, while only the spiritual is good. In the same way, Transgenderism has embraced the idea that one’s feelings ought to trump one’s biology.

The combination of these various factors has provided the perfect storm for the rise of the Transgender Movement.

What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You

I recently read an op-ed in the New York Times titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy.” The author, Andrea Long Chu begins with a shocking admission:

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to.

Notice how Chu admits that the surgery won’t actually reassign sex. Chu’s body will regard the vagina as a mere wound which will require ongoing treatment. That is to say, all that surgery and cross-sex hormones can do is provide cosmetic changes. They cannot change one’s chromosomes. People who undergo sex reassignment surgery, therefore, do not become the opposite sex. They simply masculinize or feminize themselves.

While the activists want to paint a beautiful picture of the Transgender Movement, the reality is much, much darker. Chu goes on to state in the article, “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones. . . . Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began my transition.” Statements like these ought to grieve us. People like Chu deal with deep emotional pain and they deserve our most sincere compassion. Gender dysphoria is no joke, and we ought not treat it lightly. What this article makes clear, though, is that transitioning away from one’s biological gender is not the solution to one’s problems. In fact, it often makes one feel worse.

Chu writes, “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.” Sadly, this is a reality for many Transgender people. Studies show, that no matter how accepting one’s culture is, risk of suicide remains astronomically high for those who undergo sex reassignment surgery.

I don’t mention any of these points lightly. I’m grieved over the pain many experience. But if there’s anything that we can learn from stories like Chu’s, it’s that embracing Transgenderism is not the solution.

Ramifications

While the Transgender Movement touts its desire to make sure everyone gets fair treatment, the reality is that the movement mows down anyone in its path. Consider Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker, former director of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and its Gender Identity Clinic (GIC). While Zucker himself was not opposed to the Transgender Movement, activists pushed for his termination because he was insufficiently pro-trans. His sin? He believed that we should be cautious when transitioning children. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) pressured the Canadian government into shutting down his practice despite that fact that his patients gave him raving reviews.3

Of course, this raises this issue of children who experience gender dysphoria. Unfortunately, activists push for kids to transition despite the fact that 80-95% of all kids who experience gender dysphoria grow out it.4 As part of the treatment plan, they urge puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Once kids reach the age of eighteen, then they can get sex-reassignment surgery if they like. But in what world with any moral decency is it appropriate to manipulate children’s physiology like this, not to mention their emotional state?

Bathrooms and locker rooms have also been front and center of this conversation. While the issue is probably most significant for schools, the debate went national with the North Carolina bathroom bill which stated that Transgender individuals had to have their birth certificate changed to their new preferred gender before they were allowed to use the opposite bathroom. This led to a massive outcry by cultural elites. PayPal terminated their expansion plans in North Carolina over this human rights violation. Of course, they kept their international headquarters in Singapore where private, homosexual sex will get you a two-year prison sentence.

Sports is another area affected by the Transgender Movement. Recently, Laurel Hubbard, formerly known as Gavin, won two gold medals in weightlifting at the Pacific Games. In Texas, Mack Beggs won her second straight wrestling state championship. Mack is biologically female, but transitioned to a male a few years ago by receiving testosterone injections. Mack went 36-0 in her final season. Controversies also surround Transgender track and field athletes because of their unfair advantage over biological females. And then there’s a Transgender UFC fighter who cracked an opponent’s skull and sent her to the hospital to receive treatment for severe head injuries.

In the end, the Transgender Movement isn’t all about fair and equal treatment. It holds no prisoners for anyone who opposes it. Doctors, employers, and politicians must toe the line lest they encounter the wrath of the activists. But perhaps the biggest victims of the movement are girls and women. Not only has their privacy been violated by allowing biological males to share locker rooms with them, they are also put at unfair advantages athletically having to compete against bigger, faster, stronger men.

Rebellion Against Our Maker

Deuteronomy 22:5 states, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” At root, the problem is a rejection of God’s creative design. God made us male and female (Gen. 1:27), and the very small number of intersex cases doesn’t undermine that.5

The command in Deuteronomy 22:5 couldn’t be any clearer. Don’t reject God’s biological design for you by pretending to be something you are not. Just like Adam and Eve, Transgenderism is a rejection of God’s lordship over us. It shakes its fist back at God and says “don’t tell me what to do!”

This rejection only comes by a willful suppression of the truth. Even though God has revealed his plans for sex in nature, people have chosen to go in a different direction. We read in Romans 1:24-25, “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

Concluding Thoughts

Gender dysphoria is a real issue that has caused untold thousands deep emotional distress. As Christians, we should be sympathetic towards these unique struggles and provide support and encouragement with a spirit of grace. In my next post, I will go a bit further into this by asking: How should Christians lovingly engage those with same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria?

The Separation of Church and State Deception

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Josh Klein

We’ve been duped.

I cannot think of another way to put it. The Christian right has been duped.

Deceived by what? You may ask.

The separation of Church and State.

What if I told you that the phrase “separation of Church and State” was found nowhere in the constitution or the Bill of Rights?

It’s true.

Now, we’ve constantly been told that the first amendment of the Constitution is where we get the phrase. But how? And was it to protect the Church or the State?

Commonly, the ACLU and other left-wing advocates have indicated that separation of Church and State is meant to keep religious speech and thought out of the public sphere. They argue that individuals with deeply held religious beliefs should not let their religious morals dictate their policies. Of course, this all comes to a head as Donald Trump is appointing a devout Catholic with a record on pro-life rulings to the Supreme Court. Long time Senator Dianne Feinstein implicated that such beliefs were a danger to the constitution when she said to Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you,”[1] whatever that means. The argument of course only applies to those on the right side of the aisle. Those on the left are encouraged to use their voices and religion to convince the masses. For instance, Mayor of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg constantly used his religious opinions to back up his political motives[2]. Advocates for nationalized healthcare have also often used religious language to advocate for the socialization of the healthcare system. But when it comes to voices speaking out against abortion or for individual responsibility based on scripture charges of conflating “church and state” abound. And too many have been duped into believing that to be the case.

Churches have been sidelined in many a political discourse at the use of the words “separation of Church and State.” Prayers before football games have been cause for litigation since the 1990s[3]. Churches threatened with the loss of tax-exempt status for entering the political sphere[4] and non-prophets have been threatened as well. Public schools have been shamed into eliminating public prayer before events and again, the hot button topic of the day is the religious affiliation of a future Supreme Court justice.

But what does “separation of Church and State” mean? Where did it come from? Why is it important? And, as a Christian, is it really not okay to use our faith in determining political engagement? And where is the pastor’s role in all of this?

These are important questions in this day and age, and for too long the Church has abdicated the responsibility for answering these questions to the public sphere.

Where does “separation of Church and State” come from? And what was its purpose?

Many might say it comes from the constitution. They are wrong. That does not mean the concept does not reside in the constitution. It does. However, to adequately understand what the term was meant to establish one must know where it comes from what part of the constitution is it derived.

The term itself was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 in which he commends the first amendment and implies that it is the Church, not the State, that is sought to be protected by it. He says, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that acts of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”[5]

The history of the conversation is even more interesting. The Danbury Baptists were concerned about their religious freedom and penned a letter to Jefferson prior to his inauguration into office. Jefferson’s response was to insure them that the practice of religion was, in fact, an inalienable right guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution.

The term then became codified as part of the First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in 1878. Thus, the confusion for many that it is a part of the constitution when the words do not appear in the writings.

But what does all of this mean?

It simply means that, as Jefferson wrote to reassure the Danbury Baptists, the desire to not establish a national religion was an effort to protect the Church (religions), not the State.

In other words, our public discourse has missed the point. It is not to separate religion from government completely, but to separate governmental control from religion completely. Protect people’s right to worship, not to protect the government’s atheism because, as we shall see, the government was not intended to be run atheistically.

And this principle was understood by the founding fathers.

They knew that a nation built on the fundamental idea that God (the creator) endowed each individual with inalienable rights must incorporate religious thought and ethics in the way it governed. That is, in fact, a religious statement!

John Adams famously said this in a letter in 1798 “Because we have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by – morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition – Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People” (emphasis mine).[6]

Two of the authors of the constitution seem to indicate the opposite of our current civil discourse. The guiding of our government can only be adequately done through moral and religious convictions. The freedom to worship is not a positive right given by our government, it is a negative right given us by our Creator. The government’s role is not to tell us who or what we ought to worship, or how, but to protect our God-given rights to worship.

So what sense does it make then that government would make any statements curbing speech or reference to God (any god for that matter) in a public setting? Also, given the history of our constitutional writers, would they not be pleased with the selection of justices that exhibit a moral and religious standing?

Would the founding fathers be opposed to public discourse that not only mentioned God but also offered to worship God? According to Jefferson and Adams, they would not. The only objection they may have is if the government made a law that forced others to worship a certain way.

How then should Christians and the Church act politicly?

It is clear, at least to me, that the above evidence (and there is plenty more, but for the sake of space we will rest the case there) would indicate not only a prohibition on the government from intervening in worship but also an encouragement from government for religious entities to engage with politics.

Religious institutions, churches, pastors, and the like should be outspoken and engaged politically. So long as no laws are being passed to infringe on a person’s right to worship whomever or whatever they choose then religious engagement should be robust, not anathema.

But, as Christians, we are not bound to the constraints of the constitution but by the constraints of scripture. How ought we engage in public life in a way that is honoring to God? Just because it is legal does not mean it is biblical.

This is a difficult question to answer, in part because the cultural context of 1^st century Rome is so politically different than 21^st century America, as well as the ambiguity with which Jesus carried himself on political matters. However, I do think there is a solid biblical precedent for the believer to follow.

On a personal and a corporate level, I believe the engagement can look very similar.

As a Pastor, I seek to understand what the leadership in the church did politically throughout the scriptures. First, I see a group of believers that were fairly apolitical but also understood their role as citizens. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 both indicate that a humble submission to the authorities is necessary to maintain a good witness as well as to best glorify God. However, Acts 5 would indicate that there are exceptions to this sort of submission. Those exceptions take place when the government is dictating that we must not worship our God and/or dictates that preaching the gospel is antithetical to the government’s legal system. In both cases, it seems clear throughout scripture that disobedience of man-made institutions to glorify God is not only acceptable but required.

Given what was established by the constitution, it seems that the freedom we experience in this country is a cause for celebration and humble submission to our governmental authorities, but it also means that we ought not abdicate our political responsibilities at a personal or corporate level.

The laws of our great nation were meant to encourage interaction with the political sphere from the religious sphere. The religious sphere was expected to influence the political sphere, though the political sphere was to refrain from influencing the religious!

For far too long we have let empty words about supposed Christian political ethics bind our consciences. Religion was always intended to be the bulwark of the American social fabric. Thus, as Christians, we should feel free to engage with politics on a religious level.

Whether or not to be overtly political from the pulpit or from within a religious organization then transfers not from a Romans 13 issue but to a Romans 14 issue. This is an area where each individual congregation must make its decision, but to forbid all churches from acting in politics seems unconstitutional and unbiblical.

As a pastor, I also seek to take my cues from the Apostle Paul on this matter. He was not afraid to use his political rights as a citizen of Rome to protect himself and further the gospel (Acts 22:22-29). Why are we so hesitant to exercise our rights? Rights given by God and recognized by the American Constitution are far more available to us than they were to Paul?

Because we have been told that we are not good Christians if we are also patriotic. Now, there is an argument that can be made and should be made, for those that put their country above their God. This dogmatic patriotism is a form of idolatry and thus, a sin.

But these are not the people I am addressing in this section.

It is not anti-Christian to be pro-American (see, Should Christians Be Against Christian Nationalism?). I do think that Christians ought to be honest about the moral failings of America’s past and present; however, to be a proud citizen of the country and to participate in that citizenship appropriately is not only good but godly. Paul exemplified this for us through his life and writings. He was a proud Roman but not without a critique of Roman culture when it cut against the grain of God’s holiness. Yet somehow, there is a movement seeking to convince the Christian right that any sort of patriotism is idolatry and that exuberant participation in the American system of government is complicity in all its evils, real or imaginary. Of course, the same standard is not set for the Christian left, which would laud the abhorrent practices of abortion and gender transitioning among children within our own culture.

In a sense, the use of “separation of Church and State” as a political weapon against Christians has been effective. No loving Christian worth his or her salt would endeavor to be considered politically motivated in their religious practices and ideology, so we tend to take the critiques to heart and placate the complaints with mea culpas aplenty. It is time that we stand for our rights as citizens of America and as godly disciples within that same vein.

This means a thoughtful and robust engagement with politics from a Christian perspective should be expected from our churches, and not simply the churches that correspond with the popular liberal narratives. We must no longer be afraid of the charge of politicization of the gospel when, in fact, it is in standing for the gospel that we embrace the political realm, especially in America. In no other land throughout history and time has the Christian been given such a lofty platform as the platform of the first amendment.

Like Paul, who used his Romans citizenry as a means to explicate the gospel throughout the empire, we also must seek to use our American citizenry to freely and unapologetically declare the truth to the masses. If we are condemned for doing good amidst our national discourse, then we have fulfilled 1 Peter 2 in its fullness.

It is not only within our rights as citizens of this country to fight back against the misuse of the first amendment against religious institutions; it is also liberty afforded to us through scripture and the example of other godly people that came before us. Let us not acquiesce to the loud narratives about what churches can and cannot do amidst the political landscape, but let us boldly preach the gospel and the truth of biblical justice and morality in accordance with scripture and in submission to the original authors of our nation’s founding document. In doing so, we do not espouse hypocrisy, nor do we cheapen the gospel through politics. In fact, I would argue that scripture indicates the opposite of those charges is true. If we are to be salt and light, we must be salt and light in all spheres of culture. Preserving the good and exposing the vile for that is what we use salt and light to accomplish, yes, even in and perhaps especially in the political realm.

Notes

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/feinstein-the-dogma-lives-loudly-within-you-and-thats-a-concern/2017/09/07/04303fda-93cb-11e7-8482-8dc9a7af29f9_video.html

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/politics/pete-buttigieg-religious-journey/index.html

[3] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-ohio-school-district-over-football-team-prayers

[4] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics

[5] https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

[6] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102

Would Abolishing The Police Bring Us More Peace?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Jason Jimenez

What will the aftermath be after disbanding or abolishing the police in our country? What will be the collateral damage?

You see, my friend, when we fail to realize the actual problem and aggressively, without lawful consent, use extreme and illegitimate methods to correct what we think is the problem, all we are really breeding is chaos and anarchy.

So, here are three points of reason I’d like to share with you in this whole discussion of whether or not it’s a good idea to defund or abolish the police.

First, we need to stop falsely portraying police presence as a police state.

I may agree in demilitarizing law enforcement and reforming many engineered tactics being used on civilians, but that doesn’t lead me to conclude we are better off defunding public safety.

Even amid protests and riots, the vast majority of the police are present to deescalate the situations that are unfolding in the streets. They are not there to inflict harm and strip people of their constitutional rights. Most of the violence is coming from a small percentage of protestors, not from the police officers.

Second, we need to reform our law enforcement, not conform to an ideology of lawlessness and disorder.

The rush to judgment by many of our legislatures to defund the police in America is lacking something pretty significant…common sense.

Think about it. How is it possible to get better policing by defunding policing? You can’t reduce crime by defunding public safety. Public safety exists to keep the peace, and if necessary, to enforce the law.

Who, I ask, will replace the police? The people rioting in the streets? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

If this is genuinely about police brutality—then let’s stick to the officers who are guilty of abusing their power. Condemning and seeking to punish the entire police force is not retribution.

The more reasonable and sensible course of action is to defund the police unions, afford better yearly training for officers, and develop better citywide support and assistance on social matters with non-profits and other agencies. Also, I believe police chiefs need more control over the hiring and firing of police officers, and when an officer crosses the line—arbitration should not be so lenient as it currently stands. This will drastically remove the bad apples in police departments while improving public safety in our communities.

Third, we cannot afford the oppression in our country to lead to the suppression of the truth.

Much of what the protesters are advocating aren’t solutions to further enhance morality and civility in our communities, and it certainly does not bring about racial unity. The civil unrest of protestors continues to spiral out of control and is leading to more civil disorder.

The truth is, and I realize many will not like hearing this, but the communities that are suffering the most from the rioting, looting, and setting buildings on fire is the black communities.

How is damaging and defacing property helping the black community? How’s that justice for Floyd and those oppressed?

In the end, these riots will have an economically negative effect on black families and communities, leaving them in more unsatisfactory conditions than before.

That is not justice.

If we take an honest and hard look at the rioters, you will discover their allegiance is to vengeance, not justice—and that is something they have no right to enforce. We are warned in Proverbs 24:29 not to say, “I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done.”

Here’s the bottom line: groups who use victimhood as vindication to act in violence and incite racism are not worthy of following or taking a knee for.

I pray you will consider these three points of reason as we pray for repentance and peace in America.

The Make-Believe VeggieTales Video about Abortion

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

VeggieTales creator, Phil Vischer, has done some wonderful videos over the years. See what you think about this new 14-minute video he just put out on abortion.

Now, before we analyze the content, what do you think is the main goal of this video? Is it to urge Christians to not merely focus on overturning Roe to reduce abortions? Or, do you think the main goal of the video is to give Christians supposed intellectual and moral justification to vote against Trump and for Biden in 2020?

Since “vote” is in its title, it appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to accomplish the latter. Now, the motive behind the video doesn’t make its contents is necessarily false. Some of it is certainly true. In fact, the video rightly highlights that overturning Roe is difficult, and it’s not the only thing that Christians and other pro-lifers should be doing to end abortion.

But Informed Christians already know that. They are already engaged in ministries to prevent abortion and minister to those hurt by it. They also know that overturning Roe will not end abortion completely in America, but it will save thousands of lives (as the video admits).

If this video is intended to shift evangelical voting priorities, it should fail because the video’s case is built on fallacies and false data. It also leaves out several relevant facts.

It offers the false dilemma that we can only reduce abortions by the methods they suggest OR by overturning Roe. Why can’t we do both? We can and should as most pro-lifers attempt to do.
It tries to make a case that changing the law wouldn’t matter much. It does so by making contrary to fact assertions and citing obviously false stats:
- An “estimated” 800,000 abortions in 1930. Really? Who’s doing the “estimating”? There were only 123 million people in the US in 1930. Today there are 331 million which are known to produce 800,000 abortions each year. Obviously, the 1930 “estimate” is wildly inflated: there were far less than 800,000 abortions in 1930 because we had only 37% of the population that we have now, and there was not the same access to abortion then as now.
- More abortions before Roe and the rate is also lower now? Again, false. According to Dr. Thomas Hilgers, who did the definitive study on this back in 1981, the true annual number of pre-Roe abortions is somewhere between 39,000 and 210,000 with a median of 98,000—nowhere close to the 800,000 cited in the video (which obviously makes their rate claim wrong). How could the video’s authors think their numbers were anything other than make-believe? It defies all experience and common sense to think you’ll get less of something if you make it legal. Does anyone really think we’ll get fewer murders if we just make murders legal? Fewer rapes if we legalize it? Incredibly, that’s what the authors of this video say has happened with abortion, and it nullifies the core of their argument.
It ignores the fact that the law is a great teacher, and that changing it yields great benefits. Many people take their moral cues from the law. They think whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. Slavery is a good example. We have a better moral view on slavery now than 160 years ago even though, overall, we are less moral now in most other areas. Why? Because the law has helped teach people since then that slavery is immoral. Similarly, most people thought abortion was immoral in 1973 as evidenced by the fact that most states outlawed it. Now we’re about evenly split. Why? Because making abortion legal made more people mistakenly think it is moral. It is not as this one-minute video unequivocally shows.
It assumes that since Roe hasn’t been overturned yet, it won’t be overturned so we shouldn’t keep it a priority (suspiciously two weeks before the most pro-life president in terms of policy and appointments is up for re-election). They ignore the fact overturning Roe requires a long game that can take many years. It requires a case to come before the court that challenges Roe through state law. This happens infrequently because states are not apt to pass such a law unless they think the court might take it and then vote favorably on it. A conservative court is more likely to welcome such a challenge. With Trump’s three judges, we may finally have such a court. That will be lost if Democrats win and pack the court—a threat Biden refuses to deny.
It ignores the fact that Roe would have been overturned in 1992 had Bork not been “Borked” by Democrats in the Senate (The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case was at 5-4 decision with Kennedy, Bork’s replacement, writing the atrocious relativistic decision in favor of keeping Roe).

So, what’s really behind this thinly veiled and fallacious attempt? It’s not because the authors have suddenly discovered the non-importance of Roe. After all, do you think this video would exist if Biden was running against Bush rather than Trump?

No, this video exists because Christians are looking for any excuse to avoid voting for Trump. When I ask never-Trump Christians, “If it was Bush vs. Biden, who would you vote for?” They all say, “that’s easy—Bush!” Yet Trump supports more conservative and pro-life policies than Bush. This reveals that they are voting personality rather than policy. (Look, I wish we had a good personality and platform in one candidate. Unfortunately, we don’t. I give Trump and A- on policy and a D on demeanor; Biden gets an F and policy and a C on demeanor.)

But Trump’s caustic and rude personality is no justification for suggesting that life isn’t the most important issue anymore. The first duty of government is to prevent the taking of innocent life, and certainly not to pay for the taking of innocent life (as the Democrat platform advocates with its taxpayer funding of abortion.) While being pro-life doesn’t necessarily make someone a good candidate, being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies a candidate.

Pro-life author Scott Klusendorf asks you to “imagine a school house that is on fire with children trapped inside. A crude talking man with arrogant tweets is willing to join you risking his life to save kids. Meanwhile, a “nice” man thought to be less haughty and with fewer sarcastic tweets not only refuses to help you, he promises to throw gasoline on the fire. Is there no morally significant difference between the two men? Worse still, should we endorse the arsonist? If you think Biden and the Democrats do not have wicked plans on abortion and will rush to implement them, you have not been paying attention to their campaign promises or the actions Senate democrats–who can’t even bring themselves to outlaw letting unwanted humans die after birth.” In short, policy trumps personality.

If the goal of Mr. Vischer and his narrator (pastor Skye Jethani) is to get Christians to give up on Roe and vote Democrat, I have a question for them: Would you would have made this video if the issue was not abortion and Roe but slavery and Dred Scott? (Dred Scott affirmed slavery by opining that blacks were only three-fifths of a person.)

“Overturning the Dred Scott decision isn’t our top priority anymore. We’ve put justice after justice on the Supreme Court and still haven’t been able to overturn it after all these years. And even if we do overturn Dred, some states will still have slavery. Besides, there are other ways of reducing slavery. And since slavery has decreased under pro-slavery presidents, it’s perfectly fine to vote for Stephen Douglas over Abraham Lincoln.”

Would these men be making that dreadful case? Would they be casting doubt on the moral importance of voting for Lincoln over Douglas? Would they gloss over the fact that Douglas not only wants to keep slavery legal, but he wants you, the taxpayer, to subsidize it?

No one would accept that case. And we shouldn’t accept theirs now. It’s a make-believe case. (For more, see my new video Does Jesus Trump Your Politics?)

Baby Elephant In China Cries For 5 Hours After Being Stomped By His Mom

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

From the New York Daily News. (Printable version linked)

Excerpt:

Little Zhuangzhuang, a newborn elephant at a wildlife refuge in China, was inconsolable after his mother rejected him and then tried to stomp him to death.

Tears streamed down his gray trunk for five hours as zookeepers struggled to comfort the baby elephant.

They initially thought it was an accident when the mom stepped on him after giving birth, according to the Central European News agency.

Employees removed him, cleaned him up and treated his injuries, then reunited the baby with his momma.

But she was having none of it, and began stomping him again.

So the game keepers stepped in once more and permanently separated the two.

“We don’t know why the mother turned on her calf but we couldn’t take a chance,” an employee told CEN.

“The calf was very upset and he was crying for five hours before he could be consoled,” he said.

“He couldn’t bear to be parted from his mother and it was his mother who was trying to kill him.”

The petite pachyderm, born in August, is now doing well. The zookeeper who rescued him from his violent mother adopted him and helped him thrive at the Shendiaoshan wild animal reserve in Rong-cheng, China.

I found another photo of the baby elephant here:

A baby elephant’s birthday is supposed to be happy

So, in this post, I wanted to take about the duty that parents have to their children.

I guess a lot of my views on ethics are rooted in the obvious needs that children have. When I look at an unborn baby, I can tell what it needs. So, I am careful not to cause a pregnancy before I can supply its needs. The needs of the little unborn creature are driving these moral boundaries on me. And the same with born children. I oppose gay marriage because when I look at little children, I want them to have a stable environment to grow up in with a mother and father who are biologically related to them (in the best case). I permit lots of arrangements, but I promote one arrangement over the others because that’s what’s best for children. Anyone can look at unborn and born children and see that just like anyone can look at a crying baby elephant and understand – “I have to govern my behavior so that I don’t hurt you”. If that means cutting off the premarital sex and making decisions that are likely to produce a stable marriage, then that’s what we should do.

Children cry too, you know. They cry when we hurt them. They cry when we make bad decisions and when we don’t provide them with what they need. Children need mothers and fathers who care about them. Making a safe environment for a child isn’t an accident. It isn’t random and unpredictable. We have to control our desires before we have children so that we provide children with what they need. It would be nice if men and women were more thoughtful and unselfish about children and marriage before they started in with sex.

What If God Is Removed From The American Equation?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

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.

God’s Good Creation

Corruption Of Sin

Definitions

The Perfect Storm

What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You

Ramifications

Rebellion Against Our Maker

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Where does “separation of Church and State” come from? And what was its purpose?

How then should Christians and the Church act politicly?

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

First, we need to stop falsely portraying police presence as a police state.

Second, we need to reform our law enforcement, not conform to an ideology of lawlessness and disorder.

Third, we cannot afford the oppression in our country to lead to the suppression of the truth.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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:

**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.**