A Twofold Calling: Why God Raised Up the Church for the Gospel and the Jewish People

Throughout the history of Christianity, God has raised up His people in specific places and times for unique purposes. The early church carried the gospel from Jerusalem across the Roman Empire. The Reformation revived biblical faith and reshaped the Western world. In our time, many Christian leaders believe that God has entrusted a distinctive mission to the American church — a mission with two inseparable parts: to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations and to stand with the Jewish people, including the modern State of Israel.

These two callings are not separate tracks. They emerge from the same biblical story, reflect the same divine purposes, and together represent one of the most important responsibilities of the church in our generation.

Preach the Gospel — and Fuel a Global Missions Movement        

The first and most fundamental calling of the church is as old as Christianity itself: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” (Matthew 28:19). The Great Commission is not a suggestion for particularly zealous Christians — it is the church’s central identity and purpose. And for the past two centuries, the American church has played a uniquely significant role in carrying out that mission.

Beginning in the early 19th century, especially during the Second Great Awakening, revival movements in the United States helped spark a powerful missionary effort that would go on to shape global Christianity. Out of this wave of spiritual energy came the Student Volunteer Movement, founded in 1886, which mobilized more than 20,000 young Americans for overseas missions before World War I. In the years that followed, organizations such as the International Mission Board, Wycliffe Bible Translators, and Youth With A Mission (YWAM) played a key role in advancing the gospel by translating Scripture, planting churches, and training local leaders around the world. At the same time, American Christians poured significant resources into building seminaries, hospitals, schools, and humanitarian projects, all of which opened new doors for ministry and helped expand the global reach of the gospel (Noll, 2002)[1].

Of course, this work has never been exclusively American. British, German, Australian, Korean, Brazilian, and African churches have all been deeply involved in global missions. But the American church, uniquely resourced with wealth, freedom, technology, and global influence, has often functioned as a catalyst, multiplying the reach of others and pioneering new frontiers. The missiologist Christopher Wright notes that mission is not an activity the church does but the very identity of God’s people, participating in God’s mission to redeem all nations (Wright, 2006)[2]. This identity must remain central as the global landscape changes. Billions still live without access to the gospel, and God’s call to the American church remains: to send, support, and sustain a movement that reaches every tribe and tongue.

Stand with the Jewish People — Beyond Prophecy Charts

The second calling, standing with the Jewish people, is more controversial but no less biblical. It is not merely a matter of eschatology or politics. It flows from God’s covenant promises, from the church’s spiritual heritage, and from a moral responsibility rooted in history.

God’s relationship with Israel did not end with the coming of Christ. His promise to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you…” (Genesis 12:3), was never revoked. Paul makes this point clearly in Romans 11, using the image of a cultivated olive tree to describe the relationship between Israel and the Church. Gentile believers are like wild branches grafted into Israel, drawing life from its covenant blessings (Romans 11:17–18). The root itself remains essential, and “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). Moreover, Paul envisions a mysterious future in which the salvation of the Gentiles will provoke Israel to jealousy, ultimately leading to its redemption, and that redemption, he writes, will mean “life from the dead” for the world (Romans 11:15).

This vision offers a deeper reason to stand with the Jewish people than geopolitical alliances or prophetic speculation. At its heart, this is about covenant faithfulness and gratitude. From Israel came the Scriptures, the prophets, the covenants, and ultimately the Messiah Himself (Romans 9:4–5). Christianity isn’t a replacement for Israel — it’s the continuation and fulfillment of God’s promises through Israel. Supporting the Jewish people today, including affirming their right to security and self-determination in their ancestral homeland, is a way of honoring God’s faithfulness and participating in His unfolding plan (McDermott, 2017)[3].

The Moral Imperative: Confronting the Oldest Hatred      

Even apart from theology, there is a profound historical and ethical reason for Christians to stand with the Jewish people: antisemitism. Often called “the world’s oldest hatred,” antisemitism has plagued humanity for millennia, from ancient slanders to medieval blood libels, from forced conversions to expulsions, and culminating in the Holocaust. Tragically, much of this hatred was fueled or tolerated by Christians, particularly in the Church in Europe and the Middle East. The Church fathers also wrote polemics against Jews, medieval councils imposed discriminatory laws, and even Martin Luther penned vitriolic works that were later exploited by the Nazis (Noll, 2002)[4].

Yet the story also includes courage and repentance. Believers such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie ten Boom, and André Trocmé risked their lives to resist antisemitism and protect Jewish lives. Their example demonstrates what faithful Christian witness looks like amid hatred and violence. Today, antisemitism is resurging in new forms like conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, and the delegitimization of Israel itself. The Church needs to, once again stand in the gap. Confronting antisemitism isn’t about politics — it’s about living out Christian love and obedience to Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31).

Historical Responsibility and Theological Gratitude

Christianity is inseparable from its Jewish roots. Every page of Scripture, every covenant, and every prophecy is part of Israel’s story. Jesus Himself was a Jew who observed Jewish festivals and fulfilled Jewish prophecy. As N.T. Wright argues, the church does not replace Israel but participates in its vocation, to bear witness to God’s faithfulness and salvation before the nations (Wright, 2013)[5].

That shared story carries responsibility. After centuries of persecution, I believe Christians have a moral responsibility to stand up for the dignity and safety of the Jewish people. One important way we can live out that responsibility is by supporting their right to self-determination, including the existence and security of the State of Israel. Doing so doesn’t mean we have to agree with every policy or turn a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians, but it does mean recognizing a deep obligation shaped by history and conscience. Justice, as the prophet Micah reminds us, requires that we “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly” (Micah 6:8). Christians can oppose antisemitism and advocate for Palestinian dignity simultaneously. Compassion is not a zero-sum game.

“Compassion is not a zero-sum game.”

Engaging Objections: Supersessionism and Political Zionism                     

Some Christians reject this emphasis on Israel, arguing that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan — a view known as supersessionism. But Paul directly refutes this in Romans 11:1 “Has God rejected his people? By no means!” The inclusion of the Gentiles does not mean the exclusion of Israel; God’s promises are enduring. Theologian Gerald McDermott argues that the church’s historic neglect of Israel stems from theological misunderstandings that flatten the biblical story and ignore its Jewish context (McDermott, 2017).

Others fear that Christian support for Israel leads to uncritical nationalism or partisan politics. This is a legitimate concern, and precisely why Christian support must be rooted in biblical theology and wisdom, not worldly ideologies. Supporting Israel does not mean endorsing every action of its government. It means affirming the Jewish people’s right to exist, opposing antisemitism, and advocating for policies that uphold human dignity on all sides.

Mission and Israel: Two Callings, One Story

It is important to see that these two callings, mission and solidarity with Israel, are not separate. They are deeply intertwined in God’s redemptive plan. Paul’s vision in Romans 11 suggests that Gentile evangelism will one day stir the Jewish people toward faith, and their redemption will bring even greater blessing to the world. In this way, mission and Israel’s restoration are part of the same divine trajectory, one that points to the final renewal of all creation.

Moreover, antisemitism itself is a barrier to the gospel. How can the church credibly proclaim the love of God if it remains indifferent to hatred against the people through whom God brought salvation into the world? Standing with the Jewish people is therefore not a distraction from the church’s mission but an essential part of it.

Strategic Pathways for the American Church          

The American church has been uniquely positioned by God, with resources, freedoms, and global influence, to play a leading role in this twofold calling. But how can we move from ideas to action? Here are five strategic ways churches and believers can live out this mission:

  1. Recommit to Global Mission. Renew investment in missionary sending, cross-cultural training, and gospel-centered partnerships. Support indigenous leaders and prioritize unreached peoples.
  2. Confront Antisemitism Locally. Educate congregations about antisemitism’s history and current expressions. Partner with Jewish organizations to stand against hatred in your community.
  3. Build Bridges with Jewish Communities. Foster relationships based on respect and trust. Participate in dialogues, attend cultural events, and demonstrate solidarity.
  4. Advocate for Justice and Peace. Support Israel’s right to exist while calling for policies that promote peace, security, and dignity for both Jews and Palestinians.
  5. Teach the Church’s Jewish Roots. Recover the Old Testament story, celebrate the Jewishness of Jesus, and help Christians understand how they are grafted into God’s covenant story.

Conclusion: A Church for This Moment       

When we step back and see the bigger picture, the twofold calling of the church becomes clear. God has entrusted His people, and especially the American church, with immense opportunity and responsibility. We are called to proclaim the gospel with boldness and compassion, fueling a global missions movement that reaches every nation. And we are called to stand with the Jewish people, opposing antisemitism, honoring God’s covenant, and seeking justice and peace in the land where God’s promises began.

These are not two competing agendas; they are two sides of one mission — the mission of God to bless all nations through the family of Abraham and to reconcile the world through His Son, Jesus Christ. If the American church embraces this calling with faith, humility, and courage, it will not only shape the course of history but also bear powerful witness to the unchanging faithfulness of God.

References:

[1] Noll, M. (2002). A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[2] Wright, C. J. H. (2006). The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

[3] McDermott, G. (2017). Israel Matters: Why Christians Must Think Differently About the People and the Land. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

[4] Noll, M. (2002). A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[5] Wright, N. T. (2013). Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Recommended Resources:

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

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

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

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

 

Tim Orr serves full-time with the Crescent Project as the Assistant Director of the Internship Program and Area Coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London. In September, he will begin a PhD in Religious Studies at Hartford International University.

Tim has served as a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis, and for two years, he was also a research assistant on the COVID-19 study led by Hartford International University. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, Shia Islam, and gospel-centered ministry to Muslims.

He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. His work has been published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals, and he is the author of four books. His fifth book, The Apostle Paul: A Model for Engaging Islam, is forthcoming.

/by

Why Culture Hates Charlie Kirk

When my book When Culture Hates You came out earlier this year, I got a lot of comments from both Christians and nonbelievers either laughing off the idea that the culture hates Christians or suggesting to me that writing a book of this nature was unnecessarily “divisive.” There are even some reviews from people who loved the book but still mention that you “just have to get past the title.”

Never mind the fact that Jesus Himself told his followers the world would hate them (John 15:18-19: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you”).

Other Christians commented that because Trump had just been elected (the book came out in February), we were starting to see that the culture was turning around and we’re actually NOT so hated.

Again, never mind the fact that Jesus Himself told his followers the world would hate them…and that when you understand the nature of the hate He spoke of and WHY it would exist, you know it’s not a function of the specific political environment at any given point in history.

Friends, I’m going to be honest. When Culture Hates You explains so much of what we’ve seen play out this week (in both the tragedy and responses to it). It provides so many answers I think Christians need and are seeking right now, but I haven’t wanted to say that because I didn’t want people to think I was using a tragedy to self-centeredly promote a book. I decided yesterday, however, that to not point people to content that is, I believe, so uniquely timely for what’s happening out of fear of people’s mistaken perceptions regarding my motivation is ironically what IS self-centered.

So, at the risk of anyone thinking that, I reached out to my publisher and got permission to share chapter 1 here (I also shared the audiobook version on my podcast this morning if you’d rather listen). This chapter alone explains:

  • Why Christians like Charlie Kirk are hated by the culture (keep in mind the culture doesn’t hate ALL Christians)
  • Why Christians are hated for some beliefs and actions but not others (you won’t be hated for serving in a soup kitchen!)
  • What, exactly, Jesus said about the world hating his followers
  • Why Christianity is necessarily a public faith

As I said in my podcast episode, if you want to read/listen to the rest of the book at some point, great…but if you have $13 dollars to spend today, donate it to the Kirk family or TP USA rather than buy the book. I put all of their suggested donation links in the show notes here.

In the meantime, I hope the following chapter helps bring clarity to much of what we’ve seen play out in front of our eyes this week. If you’d like to read my social media comments on this horrific murder, I’ve been posting all week on Facebook and X. And finally, please take the time to watch my friend Frank Turek’s video in honor of Charlie. Frank was a close friend of Charlie’s and was standing next to him when Charlie was killed. He was one of five people in the car with Charlie on the way to the hospital. His video is a touching and beautiful tribute.

CHAPTER 1: JESUS SAID IT WOULD HAPPEN

On March 26, 1997, sheriff’s deputies received an anonymous call to conduct a welfare check at a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, California. When they responded, they found a shocking scene: Thirty-nine people were dead in what turned out to be the largest mass suicide in United States history.

But it wasn’t just the scale of the event that made headlines. The deceased were also mysteriously dressed in identical black tracksuits and brand new Nike shoes. Each person had the same cropped haircut, and a large purple cloth covered each of the bodies.

News of the bizarre scene spread quickly, and the media flooded in. It was eventually discovered that the group had ingested a fatal mix of applesauce, sedatives, and vodka in order to facilitate a collective suicide. Why? They thought they needed to shed their earthly bodies in order to board an alien spacecraft hidden behind an approaching comet—a spacecraft that would pass them through “Heaven’s Gate” and into a higher existence.

People were enthralled with the Heaven’s Gate cult. Despite the morbid nature of what happened, the group became the subject of endless jokes. Even Saturday Night Live made a parody about them. Culture clearly thought the people in this cult were delusional and outlandishly wrong.

But culture didn’t hate them.

When your doorbell rings and you discover two well-dressed people from a local church standing on your doorstep, there’s a good possibility that they’re Jehovah’s Witnesses. Well known to the world for their door-to-door preaching, Jehovah’s Witnesses reportedly send more than 8.5 million people into neighborhoods each year.

The internet abounds with humorous memes of people desperately searching for a way to escape from these evangelists on their doorstep. Apparently, if you’ve ever looked through your peephole and quietly tiptoed back into your house hoping your unsolicited church visitors won’t ring again, you’re not alone. Culture widely considers Jehovah’s Witnesses to be annoyingly persistent in their door-to-door activities.

But culture doesn’t hate them.

If you drive through parts of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, you’ll probably have to slow down to accommodate horses and buggies driven by men dressed in black broad-brimmed or straw hats. As you pass through that rural countryside, it may look like a scene from another century. But it’s just everyday life for the local Amish community.

Lancaster County is home to the largest and most well-known settlement of Amish in America, though there are more than 350,000 Amish living in 32 states. Known for shunning modern conveniences like cars, the Amish form close-knit communities dedicated to simple living in pursuit of an undistracted devotion to God. Millions of people flock to Amish country each year to get a glimpse of their unique way of life. At the same time, the Amish are often criticized for being backward and isolated. Culture certainly thinks they’re a curiosity.

But culture doesn’t hate them.

There’s a reason culture doesn’t hate these three groups, even when it’s had an otherwise negative assessment of them: These groups haven’t attempted to influence the public square with their contrarian views.

The public square is anywhere views are shared for the purpose of shaping public opinion on how society should function. If contrarian groups keep to themselves such that culture can forge ahead in the absence of any perceived imposition of beliefs from those groups, they’re in the clear. Go ahead and don matching tracksuits with your friends in anticipation of an alien ship, spend your free time knocking on doors, or live like it’s 1750. Culture might think you’re pitiable, annoying, or weird, but it won’t hate you.

That level of bitter resentment is reserved for groups who believe they shouldn’t keep their contrarian views to themselves. Groups whose very purpose includes a charge to influence the culture around them based on beliefs starkly opposed to those cherished by that culture.

Groups…like Christians.

Who Is Culture?

When I say that culture does or does not hate certain groups, you probably have a general idea of what I mean by culture. But because that word can imply some very different things in different contexts, it’s important to clarify what I mean by it for the purposes of this book.

In the broadest sense, culture refers to the way of life for a society—the manners, dress, language, religion, arts, and customs generally shared by a group of people at a given time. That’s the kind of definition you’d find in a dictionary. But in everyday conversation, people typically use the word culture to mean something much more nuanced. Culture, in this colloquial sense, is personified. It refers to the people and institutions who hold the values considered to be in vogue for a given society.

For example, if someone says to you, “Today’s culture thinks that…,” you intuitively know how the sentence might end given what you observe around you. Any of the following statements would readily fit the presumed context: love means affirmation; it’s better to be spiritual than religious; happiness is the goal of life; you shouldn’t be judgmental; or any number of other prevalent ideas.

This zeitgeist, or “spirit of the times,” can be observed at both individual and institutional levels. Examples of key cultural institutions would include the media, entertainment, government, and academia. Individuals influence those institutions, and those institutions, in turn, influence more individuals. That cycle is ongoing and mutually reinforcing, leading over time to certain values becoming culturally acceptable or celebrated and others becoming anathema. Culture, then, is a snapshot of the current state of society’s values.

That said, it’s important to also emphasize some qualifications about what isn’t implied by my use of the term culture in this book.

First, saying culture thinks or does something is not making a statement about the thoughts or actions of all cultures at all times. For example, the Amish were persecuted by their culture in times past, but that cultural hatred no longer persists. The term culture necessarily implies a context of time and place.

Second, saying culture thinks or does something is not to suggest that every single person in a given society thinks or does the same. We can broadly say culture doesn’t hate the Amish, for example, while recognizing that there are surely some people who do (particularly if they’ve had a bad personal experience with the Amish community).

Third, saying culture thinks or does something is not making a claim about the percent of people in a given society who think or do the same; it’s impossible to broadly quantify the spirit of the times when that encompasses constantly shifting and diverse factors. But even if you could quantify it, sheer numbers wouldn’t necessarily tell the full story. When a statistical minority is more aggressive in influencing the public square with their values than a statistical majority that holds opposing views, it’s the minority’s values that will often come to define the culture.

In summary, for the purposes of this book, culture refers to the people and institutions who hold the values widely considered to be accepted and celebrated in the United States today.

Beyond the Soup Kitchen

The significance of culture to Christians cannot be overstated, because culture functions as a gatekeeper of the ideas that fashionable society deems admissible to the public square at any given time. And if you’re a group whose values have become anathema, the gatekeepers won’t merely roll a condescending eye at you and then let you in. They’ll funnel their hatred of your contrarian values into an active campaign to keep your influence out.

It’s probably not news to you that this is increasingly the relationship between culture and Christians today.

It’s worth noting, however, that culture doesn’t necessarily hate everything Christians might advocate for in the public square. For example, people with all kinds of different views about the world would agree that it’s a good thing to volunteer at or donate to local soup kitchens. If you’re part of a Christian group passionate about that form of service, you might decide to publicly advocate for the cause in some way. In doing so, it’s likely that no one will hate you, even if they disagree on the best way to approach the issue of food insecurity. Serving food to those in need is an action still widely considered to be a moral good.

But now let’s say you’re a group who believes humans in the womb have the same value and God-given right to life as humans who have already been born, and you decide to publicly advocate for a local pro-life pregnancy center.

I don’t have to tell you we’re out of soup kitchen territory now.

In today’s culture, the pro-life position is seen as a repulsive injustice to women. Consequently, culture doesn’t think that those who hold such a position are merely mistaken—a belief akin to thinking an alien ship is coming—it thinks they’re oppressors. If you speak or act publicly against abortion, you’ll be morally condemned and detested for being harmful, oppressive, cruel, toxic, violent, or misogynistic (more on that in chapter 8).

Loving your neighbor by publicly advocating for a soup kitchen and loving your neighbor by publicly advocating for the protection of life in the womb are both outworkings of a biblical worldview. But, as we just saw, there’s a major difference in how those two actions are perceived by culture. The former will likely draw ambivalence or approval, the latter serious condemnation. As Christians, therefore, we aren’t resented for everything we believe and do, but because we’re reviled for opposing some of the values most cherished by culture, we’re increasingly hated as a group.

The gatekeepers would love nothing more than for us to just keep serving soup while being silent about the issues on which we’re at odds with culture—and that’s a tempting proposition for many Christians. After all, if we did that, culture would like us (or at least like us more). Who wants to be hated?

But being hated is exactly what Jesus told us to expect if we’re going to follow His commands. Silence in exchange for cultural respect is a deal with the devil.

Jesus Said It Would Happen

Knowing what the Bible says about culture hating the followers of Jesus is the key to understanding the moment we’re in, so let’s go to Scripture.

Jesus called His 12 disciples together one day to prepare them to go out on a mission. He gave them the authority to cast out unclean spirits and to heal every disease and affliction (Matthew 10:1). He then instructed them at length on what to expect and do on their journey. It certainly wasn’t a talk designed to encourage the disciples with any idea that the mission field would warmly embrace them. Jesus warned that they’d be handed over to local councils and be flogged in the synagogues (Matthew 10:17), that family members would betray each other and have one another put to death (Matthew 10:21), and that He didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). It’s within that context that Jesus said the following: “You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22). Later, in Matthew 24:9, Jesus repeated to His disciples, “You will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.”

These verses should raise the question of why Jesus’s disciples would be hated. In the immediate context of these passages, Jesus doesn’t explicitly say why. But we get a more detailed picture of what He had in mind in His words from John 15:18-21:

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.

Now we have the explanation: If the disciples were of the world, the world would have loved them as its own, but because they weren’t of the world, the world would hate them. Jesus similarly connected this explanation when He prayed, “I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:14).

So what does it mean to be of the world? The Greek word translated “world” here is kosmos. Kosmos in this context refers to unbelieving mankind, which is governed by evil. To say that unbelievers are governed by evil isn’t a hyperbolic theological claim. Jesus bluntly said on multiple occasions that Satan is the ruler of the kosmos (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). In fact, He told a crowd of Jews who claimed to be children of God through their physical descent from Abraham that they were actually children of Satan (John 8:44)! Why? He said it was because their will was to do the devil’s desires.

That’s the pivotal distinction. People are either children of Satan or children of God. People who are “of the world” are children of Satan, and, under his influence, desire to go their own way rather than God’s way. In Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul says all of us have that desire for self-rule by nature:

You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Those who remain of the world are slaves to sin because they remain in rebellion to their Creator; in following their own passions and desires, they do the will of Satan. Those who give their lives to Jesus, however, receive a new nature and are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). They become children of God (John 1:12) and are now slaves to righteousness. Paul emphasizes this contrast in Romans 6:16-18:

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

So let’s recap. Jesus said the world would hate His disciples because they were not of the world; if they were of the world, the world would love them as its own. To be of the world means to be under the governing influence of Satan, resulting in being a slave to sin. Conversely, to be a child of God is to be a slave to righteousness.

That leads to our final question: Why do the children of Satan necessarily hate the children of God? John addresses this question directly in 1 John 3:9-13:

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.

In short, the children of God will be hated because they practice righteousness and the children of Satan practice evil.

Righteousness is despised by a fallen world.

When the children of God practice righteousness, they shine light on the works of the world, unveiling the truth of what they are: evil. Satan may masquerade as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), but that illusion is shattered by the true light that comes from the followers of Jesus. Of course those who are of the world will hate that. And they’ll hate you for making it happen.

Christianity Is a Public Faith

Given that this is why Jesus said the world would hate His disciples, it follows that He presumed they would be engaging with the world in some way; where evil continues in darkness, there’s no light to hate. Being a Christian, therefore, doesn’t end with a private profession of faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. If we profess that Jesus is Lord over our lives, we’ll live in obedience to His commands (John 14:15)—commands that include the public engagement necessary to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and to advocate for righteousness in our given cultures. Jesus spoke of this latter role in His famous Sermon on the Mount words about being salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16):

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

As salt, we preserve a world that would otherwise be entirely under the destructive rule of Satan and enslaved to sin. We preserve the world for enough time that God’s purposes can be worked out. As light, we expose the darkness for what it is and bring glory to God in the process (see also John 3:19-21; 8:12; Ephesians 5:11). These roles of preserving and exposing are inherently of a public nature. They require Christians to advocate for righteousness in the public square. We aren’t preserving or exposing anything by sitting passively in our living rooms.

It’s at this point that some Christians get squeamish. They agree that we’re to be salt and light, but they believe that should only include sharing the gospel and doing good works in one’s private life—not advocating for righteousness in how society functions. In response, four points should be made.

First, acknowledging the need to advocate for righteousness in how society functions doesn’t imply there isn’t also a need for Christians to share the gospel and do good works in their private lives. We can share the gospel, do good works in our private lives, and advocate for righteousness in how society functions. This should be a rather obvious point, but it warrants an explicit remark because it’s a common reason Christians give for avoiding the public square. The underlying sentiment is that our primary mission is to share the gospel and do good works, so time spent on social issues is a distraction from what we should really be doing. While it’s a worthwhile warning to not turn our mission into a purely earthly one, the possibility of Christians erring in that direction is not an argument for not caring about the righteous functioning of society at all. The laws passed by our society affect our ability to even preach the gospel in the first place.

Second, the gospel itself implies the need to care about how society functions and act accordingly. When Christians say we should “just” preach the gospel, it’s worth asking what they believe the gospel is. The gospel is the good news that God loved the world so much, He gave His only son to die as payment for our sins so we could be reconciled to Him and have everlasting life. When we respond to this gracious offer of salvation, we submit to Jesus as Lord and follow His commands out of our love for Him. Caring about the way in which society functions is just one part of following Jesus’s second greatest commandment, to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-40). Part of loving your neighbor is caring about the quality of their lives in the context of the society in which they live. Put simply, we should want God’s best for them.

Third, when we care about the quality of people’s lives in the context of the society in which they live, we should want God’s best for them regardless of how many people are responsive to the gospel message at any given time. Christians sometimes believe that the extent of societal transformation for which we’re responsible is preaching the gospel so that individual consciences will be transformed and more individuals will then make righteous choices. But when you apply that logic to specific cases in history, few people would maintain the same position consistently. For example, imagine someone saying the following: “I think Christians in the nineteenth century really messed up by working to abolish slavery. They should have just preached the gospel so that individual lives would be transformed, and over time, that would have changed society to the point it would no longer find slavery morally acceptable.” I’m guessing nearly every reader would instinctively disagree with this imaginary person, but take a moment to consider why. Four million enslaved people were set free by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. How many more years would people have had to suffer in slavery if Christians had simply waited for a critical mass of Americans to have their moral sensibilities transformed through personal salvation? What if that critical mass was never reached? Should slavery have continued? Of course not. Fortunately, there were Christians at the time who recognized the need to shine light on the deeds of darkness and advocate for righteousness—the end to a wicked institution. They preached the gospel, but they didn’t wait to see how many conversions would happen before working to bring an end to societal evil.

Finally, God’s concern for how society functions runs throughout the Bible. It’s clear that God cares both about individual relationships with Him and the moral health of the societies in which individuals live. The following are just a few notable examples where biblical people were exhorted to proactively shape societies that function in a righteous way:

  • In Isaiah chapter 1, God expresses his wrath toward the people of Judah for their sins and empty religious ceremonies. He presses them to cease doing evil and instead “learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause” (vv. 16-17; see also Zechariah 7:10). This, of course, would require public engagement and advocacy.
  • In the Jewish exile to pagan Babylon, the prophet Daniel was an official in King Nebuchadnezzar’s court. Daniel told the king, “Break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:27). Here we see that God expected even pagan societies to function in a righteous way (see also Amos 1–2 and Obadiah).
  • God told the Jewish exiles in Babylon, “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7). God didn’t want the exiles to thumb their noses at the pagan culture in which they were forced to live. They were to seek what was best for the culture—which would be to everyone’s benefit, including their own.
  • John the Baptist was thrown into prison because he had rebuked the civil leader Herod Antipas for marrying his brother’s wife and “for all the evil things that Herod had done” (Luke 3:19-20). Presumably, those evil actions included what Herod had done in his governing capacity.

Being salt and light isn’t only about having a godly influence on culture, but biblical examples demonstrate it certainly includes that.

When Culture Hates You  

Something that’s easy to gloss over in Jesus’s words about being salt and light is how that passage ends: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16, emphasis added). This is a seemingly surprising conclusion given our earlier discussion about being hated for righteousness. In fact, it’s a jarring contrast even against Jesus’s immediately preceding words (Matthew 5:10-12):

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

So which is it? Will the world hate us for shining light, or will it see our good works and glorify God?

The answer is both.

Sometimes when we as Christians testify to righteousness through our words and actions, people will have their eyes opened and glorify God as the source of all that is good and true. Praise the Lord for those times!

But in other circumstances, Christians will be reviled and even persecuted. Yes, Jesus said that we would be blessed when that happens, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. The prophet Jeremiah spoke God’s truth to his culture, but he also lamented, “I have become a laughingstock all the day; everyone mocks me. For whenever I speak, I cry out, I shout, ‘Violence and destruction!’ For the word of the LORD has become for me a reproach and derision all day long” (Jeremiah 20:7-8). Jeremiah wasn’t an exception. The pattern of the Bible is that all the prophets suffered in some way (Acts 7:52). It’s never been popular to publicly advocate for righteousness in a fallen world.

No book is needed to equip and encourage Christians to persevere through cultural hatred when publicly advocating for something like a soup kitchen. As we discussed, no one will hate you for that.

But when culture hates you—when you’re reviled for promoting your views in the public square—it takes deep conviction and courage to nonetheless persevere for the common good. That requires biblical, cultural, and civic understanding that Christians don’t necessarily have by default. And therein lies the purpose of this book: to give Christ followers the crucial understanding required to confidently advocate for righteousness in today’s increasingly dark and hostile culture.

Part 1 will establish important foundational principles on the nature of Christian public influence. The purpose of this section is to provide readers with a framework for evaluating any common-good issue, whether it’s one we address specifically in part 2 or not. So don’t skip part 1! It functions as far more than a lead-in to part 2. It’s relevant to a plethora of issues Christians encounter beyond the specific ones we’ll consider in this book.

That said, in part 2, we’ll apply our understanding from part 1 to five issues that are of especially great significance for the common good today—issues on which Christians are also at great odds with culture and receive significant condemnation accordingly. These aren’t the only issues drawing resentment against Christians, but they represent a selection of those on which Christians most urgently need clarity.

I pray that When Culture Hates You will equip and encourage you to be the light God wants you to be in this world.

Recommended Resources:

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4gQL6bm

/by

The False Dilemma of Worldly Philosophies

“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”
2 Corinthians 10:5

One of my goals as a Christian and as a tenured full professor of philosophy and religion at our nation’s largest research university (ASU) is to help Christian parents and students understand what to expect if they attend classes teaching radical ideologies—DEI, LGBTQ+, Antifa, decolonization, anti-settler, anti-white, and anti-heteronormativity theories. Christians know that such universities would never permit a Christian to use class time for evangelism. The radical Marxist professor seems to think that the First Amendment guarantees them a job as a professor, but it doesn’t guarantee them that anyone will attend their classes or programs.

So how did we get here, and what can parents and students do about it?

Three Steps that Led Us Here

1. The Myth of Neutrality – The first step is the myth of neutrality. Christians allowed public universities to be disconnected from Christian belief on the assumption that in a pluralistic society, public education cannot be shaped by one “perspective.” But this neutrality was a myth—and it was never practiced by the radical left.

Many on the left claim they are teaching “facts,” not religion, so they avoid the appearance of bias. Yet, for them, the Marxist dialectic is the fact of the matter. They look at who is in power and blame that power structure for realities like poverty and crime. In the modern era, white Christian males have been in power, so they become the objects of animosity.

This assessment has no nuance. These critics lump all Christians into the same narrative, ignoring that slavery, for example, was brought to an end largely by white Christian men, whereas it continues in other parts of the world today. But for the radicals, that too must somehow be blamed on colonization and, by extension, Christianity.  All problems in any nation today are due, they tell us, to Christianity. Christian missionaries are the special subject of their animosity.

  1. Twisting Christian Values –Second, they use Christian values to tie Christians up so they can’t engage in the intellectual battle. “Christians,” they say, “are supposed to be self-sacrificing and turn the other cheek. If you’re insulted, you shouldn’t reply. And don’t Christians care about the poor? Shouldn’t you help marginalized sexual groups?”

For many Christians, this strategy is powerful. They either bow out of the conflict with radicalism or even join it because they want to help those who suffer. Radicals will even quote the Bible to Christian students: “Didn’t Jesus say that when you help the least of these, you are helping Him?”

Students may be ready for a direct assault on the Bible, but they are often unprepared for scripture twisting. One radical I work with says she loves Jesus just not the other parts of the Bible made by men.  Which parts of what Jesus says does she like and which parts are made by men?  She likes the parts that accord with her own moral intuitions (two or three sayings about helping others) and all the rest, those that call for repentance for sin, those that tell the crowd to seek the bread of life, those that call us to love him by keeping his commandments, those she dismisses.

  1. The False Dilemma – Third, we need to prepare for the false dilemma. A false dilemma gives only two options when more are available. It says, “either A or B,” when there is also C, D, E, and so on.

In a false dilemma, each side may contain some truth. Rarely does a belief system teach only falsehoods. The Marxist is right to care about the poor and to point out that greedy people misuse the capitalist system to exploit others. But the Marxist’s ability to identify real sins does not validate the rest of their worldview.

The Horizontal Solutions          

Radical professors try to solve humanity’s problems on a merely human level—what I call the horizontal level. They believe crime and poverty result from private property. Eliminate private property, they argue, and we will create perfect humans.

But the other side of the false dilemma is no better. There we find godless capitalism, pushed by atheist technocrats who want to perfect humanity through technology and transhumanism built on capitalist innovation.

Both sides offer merely horizontal solutions.

The Need for a Vertical Perspective     

The real solution begins with recognizing that there is more to existence than the merely human or merely material. We must begin with God, who has existed from eternity. We are His creatures, made by Him and given moral direction by Him. Our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.

Our human problem is first and foremost our sin by which we lost communion with God.  Our sin destroys every aspect of our lives.  It makes us hate ourselves and have body dysmorphia, it makes us hate our neighbor and develop grievances and envy, and it makes us hate God.  Although God’s commands are good for us and are the path to life, in our sin we hate his law and find it a burden.

Jesus warned the crowds following Him that they sought only material bread when they should have been seeking the Bread of Life. Poverty is tragic, but there are far worse things—such as spiritual death. Jesus was clear that we should not be focused on “what shall I eat and what shall I wear” but on the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:24-26). He was clear that “Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36).

Why the Radical Turns to Marxism       

The desire to help the downtrodden is why many godless academics are drawn to some variation of Marxism. Created in the image of God, they still long for justice and righteousness, even after abandoning God. They suffer under the weight of sin that crushes individuals and entire systems.

But rather than repent, many will just harden their hearts, double down on hating God, and propose their materialist dialectic. The “spiritually minded” simply add New Age platitudes about “the universe,” “my soul,” “reincarnation,” or “the One.”

The False Dilemma Exposed     

The false dilemma appears because both perceived options—Marxism and materialistic capitalism—reject God.

  • Some forms of capitalism assert that the individual is the absolute owner.
  • Marxism asserts that the community is the absolute owner.

But the truth is that only God can absolutely own anything.

Capitalism has real virtues: personal responsibility, private property, fair wages, investment of capital, wise use of time. It has raised more people out of poverty and produced more innovation than any other system. But if it becomes mere human ownership for selfish indulgence, it is as ugly as Marxism.

We do not have to pick between two poisons. What happens in the university is that Marxists point out abuses in capitalism, and the unprepared Christian is caught and made captive to unbelief.

Preparing the Next Generation

We need to teach our children to see through these tactics. Help them anticipate the assaults of Marxist radicals so they are not caught off guard—and so they can raise questions exposing the folly of the materialist dialectic.

If they know the strategy in advance, they can counter it. Or better yet, they can choose alternative classes and professors. No one is required to take courses from Marxist radicals. Let them lecture to empty rooms.

Recommended Resources: 

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

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

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

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

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

Top 5 Apologetic Books for a Graduate

[Editor’s note: This article was originally posted in May 2025 at Is Christianity True?]
We are in the midst of graduation season and some of us either have a graduate or know a graduate who is going to be headed off to college in just a couple of months. How can we help prepare them to face some the challenges and opportunities that college offers. Here is a list of the top apologetic books to buy for a recent graduate that would be helpful:

  1. Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower’s Guide for the Journey, 2nd edition by Jonathan Morrow (Kregel Publishers, 2017)

Jonathan Morrow is the director of Impact360 which has a two-week Immersion worldview training and a Gap Year for college students. His book Welcome to College, newly published, is now in its second edition.  J. P. Moreland, professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, states that “this is the book I’ve been waiting for the last forty years to give to college students.  It is the single best volume I have ever read for preparing students to follow Jesus and flourish as His disciples in college.”  Morrow covers issues ranging from ethics, apologetics, money management, and practical tips for navigating college.  Definitely worth giving a new (or even seasoned) college student.

  1. On Guard for Students: A thinker’s Guide to the Christian Faith by William Lane Craig (Cook, 2015)

William Lane Craig (double doctorate), of Reasonable Faith, has been establishing RF Chapters all over the U. S. and the world with several on campuses.  This book takes you on an exploration of life’s deepest questions: why anything at all exists, the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the nature of moral values and the reality of evil, the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, the resurrection of Jesus.

  1. Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College by Michael J. Kruger (Crossway, 2021)

Michael Kruger, president of Reformed Theological Seminary and professor of Early Christianity and New Testament, structures each chapter of the book as a “letter” to his daughter Emma who is now in college. This is to keep the book accessible and personal rather than a knowledge dump of information. Each “letter” (i.e., chapter) covers topics such as: (1) surviving as a Christian at a secular college, (2) since my professor is really smart isn’t it more likely that they are right and I am wrong, (3) hell seems barbaric and cruel, (4) the morality of homosexuality, (5) science seems to explain everything, and (6) the ancient scribes changed the wording of the New Testament, along with ten other letters covering hot topics that high school graduates will face in college.

  1. How to Stay Christian in College by J. Budziszewski (TH1NK, 2014)Budziszewksi, professor of philosophy and politics at the University of Texas since 1981, blogs daily at The Underground Thomist.  In How to Stay Christian in CollegeBudziszewski “discusses the foundations of the Christian faith and directly addresses different worldviews and myths that students may encounter at college. Filled with quotes, statistics, resources, stories, and encouragement, this book will equip students to conquer the dangers that lie ahead.” Budziszewski divides the book into three sections: worldviews, campus myths, and how to cope with social, religious, and classroom issues.
  2. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway, 2004)

Turek and Geisler make apologetics accessible and practical in the complete introduction to the topic. Frank Turek, who travels around the country giving presentations with the same title as the book on college campuses, is a dynamic presenter.  Starting with complete skepticism they build on the existence of truth, God’s existence, reliability of Bible, the divinity of Jesus, and his resurrection.  Includes great examples and stories to illustrate the points they make in the text. There is a wealth of resources readily available to guide students and assist them during their college years. Great graduation gift ideas.

Recommended Resources:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

 

Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4nUpHR4

/by

Class Guide: How to Avoid Filth

As students around the country get ready to go back to school, our universities are eagerly awaiting their next round of freshmen. If you’re a parent or student, you will need to know how to find classes that help you become wise and lead a virtuous life. As a professor, I can provide you with some ideas.

First, go to your university’s course schedule and see what is offered. If a class interests you, check out its syllabus. If the professor will not make their syllabus public, that is a bad sign. You can email and request it. What you want to see is the reading list and the kinds of lecture materials that are used. That will tell you if there is bias.

For example, take a look at your university’s Honors College or Gender Studies courses to see if there are classes on left-wing advocacy, left-wing border and immigration theory, LGBTQ+ sex philosophy, and even gender problems for transhumanists. Doesn’t all of that sound delightful! You just know that employers are waiting with bated breath to hire graduates who can discuss transhumanist sex philosophy on the border.

A few of these courses post the books they use, which is where you’ll see thought leaders like Angela Davis—so you know you’re in for some unbiased critical reflection.

Look at that list of accomplishments! Parents, aren’t you excited to pay thousands for your children to learn by reading a feminist Marxist who lived in East Berlin!

When they are accidentally honest about their reading list you see that they are self-described Marxists. Not many syllabi are offered publicly, however. And that is what we need to change. A public university funded by public tax dollars should be required to make the content of its classes public. I’m working on it with the Arizona State Legislature.

Second, ask the professor (in a respectful manner) about their own personal bias and how it affects the class content. Ask if they are aware of their own spin when they interpret a text. Then, ask [if, or] why other voices aren’t included—such as conservatives and Christians.

Third, take note when, during the semester, the professor inserts personal opinions or takes shots at conservatives and Christians. Report this to the state legislature. Or, you can contact me and I’ll give you the contact info. I help many students navigate the leftist bias they encounter.

Fourth, look for any proof that the professor is wise. If you were taking a course on business, you’d want proof that the professor understands business. And so, with a humanities class, do you have any proof that the professor is wise? There are a few ways to do this.

Observe how this professor lives. Does this professor worship and honor God? Does this professor confess their need for Christ? Or does this professor worship an idol, or even a demon—perhaps the gods Eros and Bacchus? If the professor cannot tell the difference between God the Lord and Eros, they won’t be able to help you learn to be wise.

Next, ask the professor which philosophers influenced them. If they say Marx, Freud, Heidegger, or Habermas, then they cannot be wiser than their teachers. Those figures offered self-contradictory philosophies to the secular world. Their philosophies are empty of transcendent meaning and have only led to despair and collapse.

If a professor can’t see that their own beliefs are self-contradictory, and if they haven’t been able to lead a good life directed toward our highest end, then they won’t be able to help you learn [very much]. It is worth your time to do your due diligence and avoid these kinds of classes.

I’ll have more soon as we see syllabi begin to be published for the public . . .

Recommended Resources:

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

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

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

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

/by

When Propaganda Wears a Habit: Why Apologists Must Guard the Truth

Note: The original version of this article was published on Dr. Orr’s Substack.
The present version has been substantially revised and adapted by the author.

When Tucker Carlson aired the episode Here’s What It’s Really Like to Live as a Christian in the Holy Land (2025), the optics were powerful. His guest, Mother Agapia Stephanopoulos, appeared cloaked in a black Orthodox veil, her presence suggesting sanctity and authenticity. The fact that she was also the sister of George Stephanopoulos, longtime ABC political commentator, made the segment doubly compelling. The habit and the surname prepared audiences to assume her words carried both religious authority and cultural weight.

On the surface, she seemed to speak truth about Christian suffering in the land of Christ’s birth. In reality, what she offered was not gospel witness but a politicized narrative—an apologetic for propaganda. This is not about attacking a nun or a television host; it is about recognizing how propaganda undermines Christian credibility.

Christian apologetics must resist the lure of propaganda, for when believers trade truth for political narratives or survival strategies, they undermine the very credibility of the gospel whose power rests on historical reality and Christ’s Lordship. Carlson’s broadcast gives us a case study in how easily symbols and stories can distort Christian witness, and why apologists must anchor every defense of the faith in uncompromising truth.

Truth as the Foundation of Witness

The problem is not only what Mother Agapia said, but how Western audiences received it. Many viewers, unfamiliar with the history of Arab Christianity or the survival strategies of dhimmi life, mistook her testimony for unbiased truth. Yet her narrative echoed centuries of Christian communities navigating life under Islamic subjugation.

Under dhimmi status—a framework that allowed Jews and Christians to live under Muslim rule but only as second-class subjects—Christians developed “survival apologetics.” These rhetorical strategies defended not the gospel but communal existence. When this survival instinct becomes the measure of witness, truth is displaced, and credibility is lost.

Symbol vs. Substance in Apologetics           

In the Western imagination, the nun’s habit symbolizes purity, moral authority, and spiritual integrity. Carlson framed Mother Agapia not as a political actor but as a “holy witness,” inviting viewers to hear her with reverence. As Roland Barthes observed, such symbols often function as “mythological signs”—they communicate meaning before arguments are tested.

But apologetics demands discernment beyond symbols. Peter calls believers to “set apart Christ as Lord” before making any defense (1 Pet. 3:15). No veil, robe, or role guarantees truth. The apologetic task is to measure every witness against Scripture, not appearances.

Why Credibility Matters in Apologetics       

Mother Agapia claimed Christians are leaving Bethlehem because of Israeli occupation. While the demographic collapse is undeniable, her explanation was misleading. Historians have shown Bethlehem’s decline stems primarily from Islamist harassment, discriminatory laws, and economic pressures. By contrast, Israel’s Christian population has grown under protections of law and freedom of worship.

The apologetic point is critical: if Christians are careless with political truth, unbelievers will not trust them with theological truth. The resurrection rests on historical reliability. If we distort the facts in politics, why should anyone trust us about history’s most important fact—the empty tomb?

The Dhimmi Reflex and the Gospel’s Call    

As Bernard Lewis observed, Christians under Islamic rule often shifted blame onto Jews as a way to preserve their safety. This “dhimmi reflex” continues today when Arab Christians echo nationalist propaganda instead of confronting Islamist hostility.

But Jesus warned against making survival the highest good: “Whoever would save his life will lose it” (Matt. 16:25). True apologetics refuses to sacrifice gospel truth for cultural or political survival. The early martyrs knew this well—burning incense to Caesar may have seemed like a minor concession, but it betrayed Christ’s Lordship. Apologetics today must embody the same fidelity.

It is worth noting that such compromises often arose under severe pressure. Christians living as minorities have faced hard choices. Yet the lesson for us today is not to condemn but to learn: fidelity to truth, even when costly, has always been the mark of authentic witness.

The Cost of False Witness     

Mother Agapia’s credibility was already in question after her discredited claims during the 2002 Bethlehem siege. Yet Carlson presented her as trustworthy, as though a habit and a surname sanctified her words.

But apologetics cannot sanctify distortion. Its task is to defend the hope we have in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15), a hope grounded in truth. The gospel rises or falls on historical reality. Once Christians become comfortable bearing false witness for political ends, we erode the foundation of our apologetic witness.

Conclusion: Apologetics Anchored in Christ Alone 

Mother Agapia’s appearance was praised as bold truth-telling, but in reality it was propaganda cloaked in sanctity. Her surname gave her visibility, her habit gave her credibility, and Carlson’s platform gave her reach. Yet none of these could sanctify distortion.

We are not called to defend propaganda—we are called to defend Christ. When Christians compromise truth for cultural approval, survival strategies, or political alliances, they may gain short-term credibility with the world but they lose credibility for the gospel. As Jesus warned, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” (Matt. 16:26).

The apologetic task is not to prop up narratives but to bear faithful witness to Christ, crucified and risen. The world will only trust our defense of the resurrection if it sees us defending truth in every sphere of life. In an age when media spectacles masquerade as reality, the most powerful apologetic is fidelity: setting apart Christ as Lord, and proclaiming Him with integrity, courage, and unwavering commitment to truth.

Recommended Resources:

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

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

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

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

 

Tim Orr serves full-time with the Crescent Project as the Assistant Director of the Internship Program and Area Coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London. In September, he will begin a PhD in Religious Studies at Hartford International University.

Tim has served as a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis, and for two years, he was also a research assistant on the COVID-19 study led by Hartford International University. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, Shia Islam, and gospel-centered ministry to Muslims.

He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. His work has been published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals, and he is the author of four books. His fifth book, The Apostle Paul: A Model for Engaging Islam, is forthcoming.

 

/by

What’s Left of ‘My Body, My Right’?

[Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted in 2014. While the general argument is still as relevant as ever, a lot has changed in the cultural landscape since then, most notably the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Plus, time-sensitive statistics are relative to 2014.]

The right to privacy just might be the most widely touted justification for abortion today. Implied within the right to life and to liberty, the concept of “privacy” demarcates the sacred domain of self-possession (my body), autonomy (my choice), and liberty (my freedom). Without at least some form of the right to privacy, one cannot defend against forced marriage, coercive medical procedures, physical abuse, slavery, forced labor or any other forms of coercion. And of course, abortion isn’t a “right” unless a mother can do what she wants with her body. One mantra, long circulated under the right to privacy is: “My Body, my right.” The (illicit) presumption is that bodily autonomy guarantees women of the right to abortion. But when these words are pressed, and the idea inside squeezes out, there might not be much pro-choice power left.

History of “My Body My Choice”     

The right to privacy has legal roots in the 1927 Olmstead v. United States decision where the letter of dissent, penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, articulated this previously unstated right. The case concerned Olmstead’s suspected smuggle and sale of alcohol. The “privacy” issue regarded how authorities gathered evidence against him. Brandeis argued that our founding fathers had “conferred against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most favored by civilized men.” Olmstead was convicted, by a 5-4 decision, on covert wire-tapping evidence, gained without a warrant. Brandeis’ dissent letter, however, proved pivotal forty years later in the 1967 Katz v. U.S. case which overturned the Olmstead ruling.

In between these events was the 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut ruling where the right to privacy was applied to sexual ethics, thus bringing that conversation closer to the abortion debate of today.

In Griswold v. Connecticut the issue was contraception, specifically within marriage. The ruling found in favor of the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold, who advocated for the free use of contraception (at least) within marriage. The predominate justification for their case? Privacy. Married couples have the right of privacy whereby they can choose for themselves whether to direct their sexual relations toward pregnancy or not.

Following the Griswold case, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) would extend the right of contraceptive access to unmarried couples as well. In that case, the right to privacy joined with the equal protection clause to give unmarried couples the same access to contraception as married couples. While the Eisenstadt case is important, the Griswold case is widely considered to be the more groundbreaking decision leading up to Roe v. Wade (1973).

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the right to privacy was one of the main justifications for the ruling, in favor of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), granting a qualified right of abortion access. Together with the concurrent Doe v. Bolton case (verdict rendered the same day, January 22, as Roe v Wade) abortion access was granted to U.S. women on an unprecedented scale. The privacy argument refers to a woman’s right to manage her body how she sees fit, with minimal intrusion from others. Her contraceptive practices are primarily her choice to make, in part, because she bears the greatest responsibility for what happens to her body be it pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, child-birth, or subsequent motherhood.

Roe v. Wade proved to be a controversial ruling, having been disputed ever since. Some sense of the “right to privacy”, however, has never been disputed, since it is understood that the federal and state government should generally respect individual citizen’s rights to conduct their private affairs privately, and to manage their own bodies with general freedom from interference. It is this special right (a.k.a., sacred right) that is implied when people say things like, “the government should stay out of my bedroom” or “you can’t tell me how to raise my child” or, more crassly, “keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” Pro-choice and pro-life advocates can all agree that there is some sort of privacy right implied in the basic legal and human rights of U.S. citizens. The terminology is not explicitly stated in our founding documents yet some sense of it has always been understood therein.

[Editor’s Note: The watershed case of Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). The decision confirmed that there was no explicit “right to privacy” mentioned in the Constitution, although, the concept still applies in regarding people’s general rights against spying, theft, illegal search and seizure, contraception, etc. Dobbs did not overturn Griswold or the Eisenstadt decisions, so those applications of “privacy rights” are maintained, even abortion is no longer included as a constitutional right]

But how far does that right to privacy extend? When pressed, it seems like there are some important qualifications that can be pitted against a blanketing sense of “privacy.”

1) Certain public health issues restrict the right to privacy

In some states, an HIV-carrier can be criminally tried for willfully spreading HIV if they don’t reveal their HIV status to their partner. Though his or her disease may, in some sense be “his body,” and “his own business,” it becomes a public issue when, under false pretense, he infects others. Similarly, a smoker may be allowed to smoke at home, but not necessarily at public restaurants or at work. It may be one’s personal right to smoke a cigarette, but since that private behavior has public consequences there is no universal right to smoke just anywhere one wants.

Furthermore, there are certain behaviors that are illegal even among consenting adults who, regarding their right to privacy, have no personal objections. Illegal drug use and prostitution are considered such pressing public health issues that we have governing prohibitions in place.

It might be exaggerating things a bit to call abortion a “public health crisis,” but that assessment has merit. In a brutally literal sense, medical abortion, among preventable causes, is by far the single leading killer for human beings of any age or race.

 

[1]* According to CDC reports for 2011, abortion claimed the lives of 1,058,490 children in utero, meanwhile malnutrition claimed 3,009 lives, various accidents (firearms or otherwise) claimed 126,438, suicides and homicide claimed 55,756.

[Editor’s Note: the current total, is now around 66,000,000 abortions from 1973-2025. And the yearly average is, again, around 1,000,000.]  

Doubtless, there are preventable cases of heart disease and Type II diabetes that could be added to those numbers, but it should be clear that the million plus deaths annually from abortion easily tips the scales when compared against other preventable deaths. Were there more than a million deaths from salmonella poisoning, or malnutrition, or suicide, or drug trafficking, or medical malpractice, then hardly a politician in Washington would fail to join the campaign against such preventable fatalities. Those numbers would easily count as a public health crisis in any other field. Even when a basic right to privacy is granted, public health crises present a plausible boundary line for personal autonomy. People might have a general right to do what they want with their bodies, but not necessarily if their actions constitute a public health crisis and especially not if their behavior extends that health crisis into killing other human beings.

2) There is no privacy right regarding child-abuse.

It is widely granted that parents have a right to raise their (minor) children how they see fit. Their home is a private bastion of liberty where they can talk, think, feel, hope, believe, and generally act as they see fit. This includes child-rearing, discipline, character formation, and even naming one’s children with most any name one sees fit. This domain of freedom has also been touted in justifying home schooling and personal choice of religious or non-religious education. Yet in spite of all that liberty at home, there is no “privacy right” allowing sexual, physical, or gross verbal abuse. The children are still individual human beings with their own rights even if their status as minors nuances their legal autonomy. In these circumstances, the general right to privacy for parents is bounded by a more basic right of the child’s right to life, liberty, and his/her pursuit of happiness. Phrased ethically, the parents have a moral responsibility to care for and support their children towards health and well-being and not treat them like slaves, robots, sex partners, or punching bags.

Regarding the subject of abortion it is common parlance to refer to a pregnant woman as a “mother” and to refer to her gestating human fetus as her “child,” i.e., “mother and child.” There is legal precedence for referring to the preborn human being as a “child-in-utero” and to the pregnant woman as “mother” (see, The Unborn Victim of Violence Act, 2004). To be fair, she may prefer not to be a mother, she may scorn motherhood, or otherwise dislike being called a mother, but biologically she has begun motherhood as soon as another human being has begun inside of her. She does indeed have great and rightful freedom to conduct herself how she sees fit, but now that another human being is involved – and biologically there’s no dispute over whether the child-in-utero is a genetically distinct homo sapien – she is a mother and any abusive acts on that human inside of her is literally child abuse. Admittedly, the legal system, via the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, does not deem assaults on children-in-utero as “abuse” unless the child is harmed by an aggressor besides the mother.[2]

The child’s physiological status, however, is the same regardless of whether the child is killed by an assailant or by an abortion doctor; whether the child is wanted or not. He or she is still an abused child in terms of the malicious and fatal harm inflicted on them. He or she is no less harmed regardless of who is doing the abusing, or what their intentions might be.

3) There are competing responsibilities of parenthood

Similar to the last point, it should be noted that parental behavior regarding their own bodies can still harm their children. While parents have a general right to privacy regarding their own bodies, their bodies, nonetheless, are part of their person so that gross negligence of their own bodies or abandonment are unethical and sometimes illegal.

If a single parent says, “It’s my body, and I want my body to be in California” but their 5 year-old child is in Maryland, then that parent’s autonomy is competing with his or her legal responsibility as a parent. To leave that child unaccompanied in Maryland is child abandonment. Moreover, if that parent participates in illegal drug activity, prostitution, or otherwise extremely risky behavior the state can rightly take that child away from that parent for his or her gross negligence. One could even be ethically and legally culpable for willfully self-destructive behavior like suicide attempts, morbid obesity, abusing over-the-counter drugs, or any number of behaviors that leave children with a dangerously unreliable parent. That parent’s right of privacy infringes on his or her responsibility as a parent, and in some cases that parent’s behavior is both criminal and unethical.

Regarding abortion, a woman might not want to think of her preborn child as a “parasite” or wish any harm on it, but she does want it out of her body to let “nature take its course.” In that sense, she may seek a more gentler characterization of the abortion process so that her behavior is construed passively, selflessly, or in otherwise nicer tones. In that way an abortive mother may try to baptize her intentions so that she’s not willing any harm, or she is aiming for the “greater good.” These efforts have some ethical value, but do not necessarily counterbalance the fact that a mother’s children have some rightful expectations that she will not deliberately destroy herself or harm them through her body.

For example, it is unethical for a smoking mother to give her prenatal child cancer or birth defects, or for her to use illicit drugs and deliver a crack baby, or to acquire HIV and knowingly confer it to her pre-born child. These acts are not just done to one’s self, but directly affect someone else. It is no longer a strictly “private” issue now that someone else is involved. Abortion, as such, is not just an act on the mother’s body but also harms the child. For example, some abortificients (abortion medications) are known to reduce the mucosal lining in the uterine wall where the embryo would otherwise implant. This leaves the embryo with nowhere to go, it is expelled from the womb. The pill was an action of the mother, affecting her own body, but its effects did not rest with the mother. The effect was a silentabortion, where another human life was taken. In this way, abortion can be ethically similar to other actions of mothers that harm their babies–even if the action was intended to be of a different sort, like smoking for pleasure, or drinking for fun, or taking recreational drugs to hide from the world. These acts might have different ethical weight themselves, but all of them also carry the ethical weight of child-abuse when they harm the child-in-utero.

4) There are competing responsibilities of citizenship

Some minimal responsibilities are expected in exchange for the many rights and privileges of citizenship. For example, one is not at liberty to plot treason against one’s president nor to attempt to assassinate the president, even if one is only “planning” such a thing without yet acting. It is illegal to even conspire to do such anti-government activities. It does not matter if one’s activities are all contained within personal journals with the materials kept in one’s home. One may have a right to bear arms, but not to bear the schematics for an assassination attempt. Frankly, a person might even be “joking” yet if the threat looks real enough, that behavior could be grounds for criminal charges. The right to privacy does not grant unqualified liberty to mobilize one’s private domain for public harm, as that is no longer a merely private matter.

Ever since Roe v. Wade pre-born children are not considered legal persons and therefore do not have the rights of citizenship. [Editor’s Note: And while the Dobbs decision overturned Roe, it did not establish federal “personhood” status for children-in-utero. Abortion policy reverted to the states, along with any related “personhood” amendments.] The mother, presumably, would still have that right of citizenship qualifying her for special privileges granted to U.S. citizens like miranda rights or voting rights in U.S. elections. She would also be subject to the laws of the land, and so she has laws which prevent her from child abandonment and child abuse, and of course child mutilation, and serial murder of children. Her privacy is already infringed upon regarding her motherhood, such that she has civil duties as a mother.

[Editor’s Note: All these duties apply to fathers as well, as bodily autonomy and the right of privacy do not, normally, entail any “license to kill” innocent human beings, especially one’s own child. Abortion-choice policy, of course, remains the lone legal exception to that humanitarian basic.]

The preborn child is at least analogous to the born child such that it’s no stretch of the imagination to think a real mother should act like a real mother, even if she’s only pregnant right now. Also, if any further legal precedents are established that raise the relative legal status of the child-in-utero, then they might come closer in status to “citizens” and be a more rightful boundary on the “right of privacy.”

5) It is illegal to use one’s body to injure or kill other people without other overriding justifications

It is illegal in many cases, and unethical in more cases, to use one’s body to harm others. A person has the right to go skydiving, but not to willfully land on another person killing them. In that case, both parties are killed. Two evils have been done – both being a kind of homicide. Of course, successful suicides can’t be prosecuted, but it’s still a criminal act, and there’s little dispute about whether it’s generally evil to kill oneself, especially if someone else is killed too.

On a lesser scale, a person might jokingly fall all over people at a party receiving bumps and bruises and giving them as well. The person might be amusing, but he’s still harming other people by use of his body. One’s right to privacy is restricted by the general principle of non-malfeasance: that is, do no harm to others. Even if one’s own very body becomes the instrument of harm, it is still unethical and in many cases illegal, to harm other human beings with one’s body. Abortion involves a mother’s instrumental use of her body, by a doctor’s assistance, to create a hostile environment for the child-in-utero. To use one’s body for harm is still unethical, and not a natural privilege within the “right of privacy.”

6) Rights to privacy can be abdicated

In the case of Bowe Bergdahl American audiences were scandalized, in part, by his reported treachery, as his “right to privacy” did not include the privilege to endanger his fellow soldiers. Bergdahl, a soldier for the U.S. Army, who legally swore allegiance to the U.S. Army, and allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers abandoning his post, going AWOL, with intent to ally with the enemy. If those reports are validated and Bergdahl is found guilty, he will not have a strong “right to privacy” defense in his favor.

[Editor’s Note: Bergdahl He was held captive by the Taliban from 2009-2014 despite his alleged efforts ally with the enemy. He was court martialed and found guilty in 2017, fined, and dishonorably discharged. In 2023 his case was appealed and his conviction overturned].

By swearing allegiance and signing his respective contracts he made a substantial commitment to the United States of America to loyally serve as long as he is able and allowed. He retains his freedom of conscience throughout (he could agree with the enemy if he wants). He retains some freedom of speech (he can say what he wants in his journals). He retains freedom of religion (he can worship or not worship however he sees fit). But his body is not fully his own, since he abdicated certain privileges of free citizenship for the sake of becoming a soldier.

Bergdahl is not unique here either. Most every working man or women abdicates some degree of personal freedom and privilege for the sake of conforming to a work environment. That’s the price people pay so they can bring home a paycheck. People can exercise their right to privacy by not working in those jobs. If they don’t want to agree to their terms they don’t have to work for that business. Fashion and film industry can have rigorous expectations of their employees, “You must dye your hair,” or “You have to be willing to do nude scenes,” or “you cannot let your body weight exceed 115 pounds.” People may also abdicate certain privacy rights as legal punishment. Some criminals are forced to wear trackers monitoring their location in the event of trespassing on a restraining order. One of the paradoxes of the right to privacy is that as a facet of bodily autonomy, people can exercise their bodily autonomy by sacrificing certain aspects of privacy.

Regarding abortion, a parent’s right to privacy might be restricted by parental duties but that very privilege to choose to get pregnant or raise a child is itself a rightful exercise of one’s privacy. Even if the pregnancy was forced on the woman, through violent rape, molestation, or incest, those horrific evils don’t implicate the child. It’s not like the child-in-utero did anything deserve a death-sentence. The mother’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy are grounds for prosecuting the rapist, not for punishing the child.

Parenthood has always been a normal constraint on one’s privacy. It’s a heavy blessing people assume when they are willing to invest some of their freedom as a sacrifice for the benefit of children. Reluctant parents may have a harder time coping with the lifestyle change, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are parents and parenthood naturally constrains our privacy. Those who do not want that constraint would do well to avoid parenthood. Killing one’s child, however is not “avoiding parenthood,” since parenthood has already begun at conception. That is more like willful failure as a parent.

So, What’s Left of ‘My Body My right’?       

Bringing all these different qualifications together, a stiff critique emerges against certain liberal uses of the “right to privacy.” We can, and should, grant a qualified sense of the right to privacy without assuming that that right includes the license to kill innocent human beings by way of abortion.

References:

[1] The CDC reports the total deaths for the U.S. population as ranging between 1.9 million and 2.5 million between 1970 and 2011 per year not including abortions. In that same time frame, abortion rates ranged from 0.74 to 1.3 million abortions. In 2011, those reports estimate that there were 2,515,458 deaths (not counting abortions) and 1,058,490 abortions, making abortions about 1/3 of all fatalities in the U.S. Yet even these numbers are skewed because natural abortion (miscarriages) are not counted whereas natural deaths that occur as complications from old age are counted. Abortions might be better compared to preventable circumstances like workplace accidents, traffic fatalities, or preventable diseases like Type-II diabetes.

[2] One could argue that our legislation is due for updating since 1973. Some things that have since been legalized in the name of abortion create inconsistences for established laws, precedents, and ideals within our legal system. For example, mutilating a human corpse for the sake shipping purposes is illegal, but if it’s in utero then that is standard practice of dilation and curettage abortions. Likewise, a pregnant mother who is woefully derelict of her maternal duties cannot be legally tried for all the negligence and abuse inflicted on her preborn-child, yet if it’s a “wanted” baby that would seem to make her the aggressor against the child as in the “Lacy and Connor Law” so that if she kills the baby through drug and alcohol abuse, she could be tried for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or at least child abuse. Likewise, if a pregnant woman is assaulted on the way to the abortion clinic, intending to get an abortion, and miraculously the thief forgets to take her wallet but does push her down, killing the child on impact–he actually saved her time, and money by killing the baby in a much shorter fashion. He can be criminally charged for killing the child, for assault,  and for theft, yet the thief was only incidentally involved in an abortion procedure intended by the mother. The mother’s “intentions” did not change the nature of that child any more than it changed the ethical status of that assault.

Recommended Resources:

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

Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

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

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

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

/by

Sending Your Kids to College on F.I.R.E. for Their Faith!

If you are the mom of a soon-to-be-college freshman, hang on. You will survive! But the more important question might be: Will your child survive college. . . spiritually? Even if he or she has checked all the boxes associated with growing up in the church, there’s always the possibility that their faith will end up no more intact than the couch at the frat house. But rest assured, I have walked in your shoes. Twice. And I can happily say that my young men thrived in college and graduated, still walking with Christ. (Thank you, Jesus!) We know this isn’t true of all of our kids, though, and we’re not trying to make anyone feel bad; rather, we hope that these blogs will help prepare you for what’s to come as a parent of a college-aged child.

Here’s the thing: We moms are experts at ensuring dorm rooms are well-equipped, meal plans are sufficient, and laundry bags are ready. After all, we’ve been doing this for the last 18 years, right? Unfortunately, statistics and experience show that we are not doing as good a job as we thought we were in one key area: spiritual preparation for college.

It’s never too early to begin this prep work, but don’t get discouraged if you think it’s too late. It’s not. The summer months, in particular, are a great time to prepare while also having bonding time with your almost-adult child before you send him or her off.

It’s never too early to begin this prep work, but don’t get discouraged if you think it’s too late. It’s not. #collegeprep #discipleship Click To Tweet

This can be an emotional time, especially if you are sending your first fledgling out from the nest. The inner conflict of letting your baby go often competes against the inner celebration of more freedom for yourself and celebrating your job well done. You will, however, feel better after that last hug, knowing you wrapped your child in tactical armor to navigate the spiritual landmines ahead. So, what do you say? How about engaging in a summer spiritual boot camp for college prep?

In this blog, we’ll introduce you to the FIRE method of preparing your kids, and then follow up with more in-depth blogs describing how to accomplish each step. FIRE is an acronym that stands for faith, environmental, intellectual, and relational. These are the four most important areas of prep work to prioritize before sending your freshman off to orientation. Now, before you throw your hands up in despair or throw your face in a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, ask God for help, hope, and discernment. He knows your child even better than you and is willing to show you what to accomplish before the first-year orientation week.

Now, before you throw your hands up in despair or throw your face in a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, ask God for help, hope, and discernment.Click To Tweet

Foundation #1: FAITH Preparation

Basic Spiritual Disciplines: Develop or reinforce Bible study and prayer. While this sounds like a no-brainer, we must remind our kids that having the discipline of personal Bible study and personal prayer goes a long way toward helping them retain the faith. In fact, six spiritual disciplines have been identified as helping youth who graduate from youth ministry to not leave the faith. These all focus on making their faith personal and not program-based. But at a minimum: Bible Study and prayer!

The six areas we alluded to above are referred to as “H.A.B.I.T.S.”: Hanging out with God, Accountability (with peers and intergenerational relationships), Bible study, Involvement in the church body (through ministry and missions), Tithing/stewardship (not just financial), and Scripture memorization.[i] And by the way, modeling these disciplines is key. Your kids are watching to see if you practice what you preach. Consider this a spiritual meal plan. Your child will be ingesting enough “junk food” on their own from peers and professors. He or she is a big kid now. No more milk. Time for solid food (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-2). Help your child lay a foundation that will support their beliefs when (not if) the ground around them shakes them to their core.

Foundation #2: INTELLECTUAL Preparation             

Apologetics and worldview training: Build confidence for the truth and evidence of Christianity and a biblical worldview through the study of apologetics. If you have been following Mama Bear Apologetics [or Crossexamined.org] already, you are well on your way. High five! If you’re new to us and apologetics in general, we’re here for you. How about a different sort of ACT review before campus — Apologetics College Training!

Apologetics is a form of discipleship that gives confidence to the Christian that their faith is a reasonable, viable, and trustworthy worldview. It helps answer the “why” behind the “what” of what we believe. Be aware of other worldviews beliefs, what questions all worldviews have to answer, and how Christianity does that. Your kid’s faith will NOT survive as a hand-me-down faith on the college campus. They need to try it on for themselves.

Your kid’s faith will NOT survive as a hand-me-down faith on the college campus. They need to try it on for themselves.Click To Tweet

Conversation training: Be ready for challenging conversations by training in tactics for defending the faith and bridge-building. Greg Koukl’s book, Tactics, is a great tutorial in having faith conversations calmly and respectfully. Our own Mama Bear Lindsey Medenwaldt’s book, Bridge-Building Apologetics, can help in this area as well.

Sharpen critical thinking skills: Can we admit that we, as a society, have almost completely lost the ability to think critically? Our kids are bombarded with information, but they do not know how to differentiate between the true and almost-true (or sometimes flat-out false!). The entertainment industry and its “professors” are two of the most influential worldview shapers our students will encounter. Does your child know how to spot logical fallacies? Do you? Merely familiarizing yourselves with these and discussing them as you encounter them in what you watch, read, and listen to will develop the brainpower to decipher false claims. And don’t forget to revisit or teach the Mama Bear ROAR method!

Discuss a biblical view of sexual ethics and why gender matters: These are two of the key issues facing the church today and may be the greatest moral issues on the college campus. Moral issues are a key way your child’s faith can be derailed in college. Help them stay on track through prayer and honest discussions. We’ll discuss this further in our breakout blog on Intellectual Preparation. To get you started, we recommend the Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality. You might also be interested in our series about biblical sexuality on The John Ankerberg Show (a new episode drops each week this summer).

Foundation #3: RELATIONAL Preparation    

Open communication: Create a healthy atmosphere, attitude, and action plan for doubts[ii] about faith and for potential moral failures. Create a checklist[iii] of things to ask when they call home or visit. I pray no parent will ever have to deal with their child seriously doubting their faith or even walking away from it, but I have talked to too many parents and heard too many stories of it happening to know that it is a reality. Make sure your child knows he or she can come to you with their doubts and questions. And in the meantime, prepare yourself for responses if tough situations arise. Foster an atmosphere where their moral failures are not shamed but dealt with lovingly and biblically so that they will not hide them but confess them and be led to repent.

Foster an atmosphere where their moral failures are not shamed but dealt with lovingly and biblically so that they will not hide them but confess them and be led to repent. Click To Tweet

Pray: No, really. Start or join a Moms in Prayer group for moms of college kids. This benefits your child, the campus, and you! This is the only “approved” way to “go to college with” your baby. (Be honest, there’s a part of you who wants to.) Praying for your college child and the campus is one of the most intentional, strategic things you can do. If your child is open to it, it also can foster communication between you two as you ask how you can be praying for him in your weekly group prayer time. A great resource to begin with is our Honest Prayers book.

Foundation #4: ENVIRONMENTAL Preparation       

Campus ministry and college church connections: Did you know your student can have a game plan for church and campus ministry involvement before they ever set foot on campus? This can be done with your own research or the help of ministries like Every Student Sent or Ratio Christi. According to Mark Whitt at Lifeway, your child’s involvement with a local church and campus ministry during the first two weeks of college is crucial to her spiritual health.

Additionally, maintaining intergenerational relationships at a local church bolsters faith and makes it more “sticky” down the road. Keep in mind that a campus ministry and a nearby campus church are not substitutes for one another. They play different roles in your student’s life. If a child has the foundational prep we mentioned above, it will be a natural transition to look for and attend a local church as well as a campus ministry. Have your student talk to returning college students at their home church about the campus ministries they are involved in.

Home church engagement: Do what you can to foster engagement between your home church and your student, both when they are at school and when they return home on breaks. Once they graduate from the youth group, encourage them to move on to a small group at your church. Does your church have a college group they can attend when they are home? As a young adult, can they move into a singles/young adult small group? Also, consider encouraging senior adults to “adopt” students while they are at college and foster ongoing contact through notes and care packages (because college students love snacks!).

The campus buzz: Know the latest issues on public and private campuses. These issues may catch your student off guard if they are not familiar with them and ready to respond. What is the spiritual, social, and political climate like on their college campus? Even a Christian college needs to be carefully vetted. What are the major events on the campus — for example, do they have a Sex Week? What does their student government support? What is their DEI policy? Are campus ministries allowed to meet on campus?

The Bottom Line                    

Reality check: If it’s June when you’re reading this, you’ve got about two months to prepare if you have a soon-to-be freshman. [Editor’s Note: If it’s August already, well, better late than never!] You can do it! As our mama bear-in-chief, Hillary, always says, “We’re all in this together.” Grab your spouse, a friend, and God, and go do this. If your child is headed to college in the not-too-distant future, consider this your Spiritual College Prep Guide. If your kid is already in college, you can still put many of these pointers into practice. Take this just as seriously, if not more so, as AP classes, building the resume, campus visits, applying for scholarships, and College Board exam prep.

Intentional spiritual preparation will go a long way toward helping all our college students leave campus without leaving their faith behind. Stay tuned for our next blog in this series – a deeper look into faith-based preparation. For now, tell us in the comments how you and your kids are getting ready for college.

Intentional spiritual preparation will go a long way toward helping all our college students leave campus without leaving their faith behind. Click To Tweet

(NOTE: This blog series originally appeared in 2016. Since then, the warp speed at which culture has accelerated in reaching even the youngest of children demands we start early in our training, just as the Mama Bear books have taught. Use our suggestions now for prep right before college if it applies to your family, but start this as early as possible with your younger children.)

References: 

[i] These HABITS were originally found in Doug Fields, Purpose-Driven® Youth Ministry (Zondervan, 1998).

[ii] Over half of teens and adults (so, the U.S. general population ages 13+) report that they’ve experienced doubts about their religious beliefs at least sometimes (12% frequently, 16% occasionally, 24% sometimes) in the past few years. Similarly, exactly half of those who are Christian or who have some Christian background or experience (50%) say they have gone through a “prolonged” period of doubt. Barna, “What Do We Do with Doubt?” February 28, 2023. Read an excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.

[iii] For Gen Z, the top four causes for their doubt are: human suffering, hypocrisy of religious people, science, and conflict in the world. Barna. See excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.

Recommended Resources:

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

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

 

Julie Loos combined her passion for prayer and apologetics in her contributions to three Mama Bear Apologetics books. Her apologetics training came from campus ministry and certificates from Biola University and the Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Julie has been teaching, writing, and speaking on prayer for Moms in Prayer International for more than 23 years. She lives in Missouri with her husband, Todd, has two married sons, two grandchildren, and enjoys working out, Bible study, chocolate, coffee, and deep conversations.

 

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

/by
Abortion Pro-Life

59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion Part 2

If you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower. In part 1 of this series, we looked at 25 reasons why men should still speak up, despite being told, “No Womb, no Say!” In part 2, we can dig even deeper and see even more reasons why women, families, and society at large desperately need men to speak up against the horrors of abortion.

More Reasons Why Men Need to Speak Out Against Abortion

26. Some women don’t want to make the abortion-decision for themselves – I’m a married man, and I grew up with a mother and sister. And from my experience, sometimes, women can feel too close to the situation to make a decision, or perhaps she doesn’t trust her own judgment, or she may even have a conflict of interest that makes her feel unsure. In that case, she may prefer to have a trusted man in her life help her make that decision, or even make the decision on her behalf. The “no womb, no say” position handicaps those women by demanding that all the men in their lives stay silent, even if they are strong, wise, loving, and great decision-makers for the family. I’m sure there are lots of women who balk at the very idea of letting man make an important decision her behalf. But, that woman isn’t every woman. Some women have healthy father figures, a good husband, and other decent and redeeming men in their lives. For those women, they are often more than happy to share the burden of a big decision with the men in their life. And when a strong and vocal husband, brother, or father is lending his strength in selfless support, she might just have the encouragement she needs to make the right decision.

27. Truth doesn’t have a sex/gender – If something is true about abortion, it’s still true even if a man says it. Moral facts are still the facts, no matter if a man or a woman is speaking.

28. Men have access to moral facts just as much as women do – just as moral facts don’t care what sex/gender you are, knowing moral facts is likewise open to men and women.

29. There are sex/gender-neutral reasons for doubting the “my body, my right” argument undergirding this “women only” mentality – It’s never been clearly shown, legally, that the right of privacy includes the privilege of intentionally killing one’s own, innocent, non-threatening, non-combatant, child-in-utero. Also, Roe v. Wade was argued on the belief that we aren’t sure when biological human life begins. But that question has long been settled: new human life begins at conception. Moreover, the “my body, my right” argument promotes extremism and contradicts normal guardian responsibilities. If bodily autonomy isn’t enough to even justify abortion, then it’s not enough to justify silencing all male voices on abortion either.

30. “No womb, No Say” is sexist against men – The “no womb, no say” position is blatant sexism, discriminating against millions of people because of their sex/gender. It’s not the tame kind of discrimination either, like when employers discriminate against job applicants for being lazy incompetent nitwits. We’re talking about the lame kind of discrimination, attempting to restrict freedom of speech and marginalizing men even if the man was permanently handicapped in a botched abortion, or when he’s been traumatized by watching, assisting, or conducting an abortion, or if they’ve walked their wives through the long-term side effects of a past abortion.

31. Abortion-Choice Policy Promotes Sexism against women – Not only is the “no womb, no say” position sexist, but abortion choice policy itself is sexist. Sex-selective abortion is currently legal, and that means girls in utero are sometimes aborted just because they are girls. Abortion also has a bad history of promoting negative health outcomes for women. Abortion itself is a violent act against women, especially when the mother’s “consent” is blurred with heavy pressure from parents or partners. And perhaps the most glaring problem of sexism in abortion is how it enables reckless man-boys males to exploit women. They can “love ’em and leave ’em”.

32. It’s hypocritical to encourage pro-choice men to speak up and prohibit pro-life men from doing the same – NARAL, URGE, and other supporters of the “Bro Choice” movement encourage men to speak up so long as they are supporting abortion-choice.

33. It’s hypocritical to accept the verdict of Roe v. Wade (1973) and then say that men shouldn’t have a voice on the issue – Seven out of nine old white guys, on the Supreme Court, decided that abortion should be legalized across the nation.

34. If pro-choice advocates tried to undo the hypocrisy, and still keep men silent about abortion, they would have to reject what men have already said on abortion – besides just the Roe v. Wade ruling, if male voices were muffled then that would mean rejecting the established insights from men in the past, regarding abortion, including expert testimony from doctors, judges, scientists, attorneys, pollsters, technicians, politicians, academics and scholars.

35. “No womb, No Say” is a veiled attempt to stifle opposition – Pro-choice powers don’t really want men, generally, to be silent, they want pro-life men to be silent. It’s not a matter of ethics and rights, it’s a matter of convenience. It’s easier to advance a pro-choice agenda if roughly half of the opposition is silent.

36. It takes two to tango – men are half of the pregnancy equation. Having a role in creating the child, it’s not clear why men would have no role when it comes to the (preventing the) fate of their offspring. Ideally, childbearing should be a team effort and not a lone burden for women.

37. The Good Samaritan Rule – Morally, we’re responsible to do the good that we can do. Tim Brahm of Equal Rights Institute explains this point with a story about watching a depressed woman attempt to drown her newborn child, then Brahm says, “Now, I’m a man. I’ve never been pregnant. I’ve never been a mother. I will never know what she is going through. . . But even though I can’t understand what she’s going through, shouldn’t I try to do something to save that kid?” Good question!

38. Some women cannot get pregnant – By the logic of “no womb no way” those women would be denied a voice on the abortion issue.

39. Men have freedom of speech, just like women do – If women can speak out about prostate cancer, and they have every right do so, then men can speak about abortion. The First Amendment works either way.

40. Abortion contradicts paternity rights – It is legally inconsistent for women to be able to “walk away” from a pregnancy (abortion), while men are denied that right. Instead, men can be forced to pay child support even when they didn’t want to be fathers. This inconsistency might be unjust, and so, men have reason to speak up.

41. Men should use their privilege in society to offer solidarity with good causes – Supposing that men have a lot of privilege in society, we, therefore, have a moral duty to exercise our privilege in support of good. Fighting against the deadliest act against fellow human beings in world history is a worthy candidate.

42. It’s good to defend those who can’t defend themselves, regardless of sex/gender – Their silent scream cannot be heard, so people with a voice need to speak up for them. Men and women alike can intercede for the voiceless.

43. Abortion is an intersectional issue so that silencing men is too simplistic to represent it fairly – There are several different inequalities tied into abortion-choice policy. There are potential inequalities between men and women. But we can also point to inequalities along racial lines, or health, age, and so forth. Some of the most influential and expert witnesses for age discrimination, ableism, and racism are males. Silencing males on the issue of abortion restricts the voices protesting ableism, ageism, and racism.

44. Men can help deter the jerks who pressure women towards abortion – Male influence can be positive or negative. It’s true that some males are horrible human beings: abusive, predatory, deviants, who exploit women and coerce them into abortion. These jerks need every societal corrective we can throw at them – police, prosecutors, jailers, therapists, etc. But often they descend into deviancy for lack of a healthy father figure or positive male friends. When decent men are involved as Big Brothers, for example, they can help counteract many of the factors driving women to abortion, such as coercion, poverty, abuse, abandonment, etc. That won’t work in all cases, but it will work for some. Decent upstanding men can help create a family-friendly pro-life culture just by modeling redemptive manhood.

45. Men can work with women in teaching a family-based model of pregnancy – It’s no surprise that most women seeking abortion are not married or even in a healthy stable family. Healthy stable families are a historically well-established way to raise up the kind of people who don’t have unplanned pregnancies. Men and women together can promote healthy marriage, and parenting as a means of curbing abortion.

46. Men are justified in wanting to defend women from harm – if chivalry is dead, it’s because feminism killed it. But good men can always resurrect it, especially if it means protecting women from the violence in and around abortion.

47. Men can speak up through their actions – Male culture is more than words. A healthy masculine voice is not just spoken, it’s modeled. Raising a child is hard work anyway, but it gets even harder when men don’t step up as fathers, friends, and husbands. Far too many men already lack the maturity, courage, and commitment to come alongside the women in their lives to help them choose life. Sometimes the most powerful words we can share about abortion are voiced in silent strength and quiet commitment.

48. Fathers should be able to talk with their daughters about abortion – Fathers have a natural right and responsibility to raise their daughters, and that includes talking about sex, love, marriage, parenting, and of course the immeasurable value of human life.

49. Husbands should be able to talk with their wives about abortion – healthy marriages should share decision making, and work as a team in their family planning. Silent men would be a disservice to wives who want support and input from their husbands.

50. Brothers should be able to talk with their sisters about abortion – Healthy sibling relationships are another family tie where guys can have the rapport with their sisters to talk about important things like sexual health, pregnancy, and abortion.

51. Women should be free to get counsel and advice from males – Male counselors, religious leaders, and caring friends can be a tremendous help for women in a crisis pregnancy. If men are supposed to shut up about abortion, then they are handicapped in their ability to help.

52. Silent men are a waste of resources –Disenfranchised males can be incredibly dangerous. Every society has an enormous burden in deciding what to do with the boys. When boys don’t have to mature, settle down, or become gentlemen to be accepted in society, then they will tend to settle for adolescence, never marrying, never committing to fatherhood, slinking towards addiction, apathy, violence, and crime. The problem isn’t as simple as “toxic masculinity.” Males are a resource in society; they can spoil if neglected and explode when broken. But when they are mobilized and directed towards human flourishing they are an irreplaceable source of innovation, defense, and development. With the issue of abortion, men can be incredibly useful. Besides lending strength, compassion, and service, they can have insights, research, and sage counsel to help struggling mothers in their time of need. It would be a pity to lock away all those resources just because of casual pro-choice rhetoric.

53. Excluding men reduces diversity – We can learn a lot if we listen to a diverse array of voices sharing insights into issues that matter. Silencing all (pro-life) men artificially restricts that diversity.

54. Men who care about the health and direction of the nation should speak up about abortion as it ties into our founding principles as a nation, i.e., an equal right to life from our creation onward – It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The benefits of a free and humanitarian society will not defend themselves. We the people have a duty, as citizens, to protect the better parts of our society, and that includes the notion of “equal rights.” The Declaration of Independence says, “all men [humans] are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our founding fathers didn’t know, at that time, that the biological moment of creation is at conception. And if we are going to avoid infusing some spiritually weighted notion about souls, then we have to legally treat that moment of creation as a biological question – the moment of conception, the onset of biological human life. See more about this point in my debate at UT-Arlington (TX).

55. It’s not humanitarian to restrict whole demographics from discussing a human rights issue – the history of human rights legislation has, for the most part, been a gradual unveiling of our equal rights as human beings. But that process has had many pitfalls and perils. We cannot trust that any one group will safely lead the way without vital corrections arising from other groups. In this way, all of us are part of an ongoing conversation about the nature, extent, and grounding of our human rights. There is no settled and final conclusion, whether in the court of law, in the classroom, or in the science lab, dictating that men need to stay out of the abortion issue. It would contradict our humanitarian values as a nation to silence whole sectors of humanity because of their race, age, sex/gender.

56. Silencing men is close-minded – No one on earth is 100% right all the time. We should be open-minded enough to where we can keep learning and correct our mistakes. Silencing an entire demographic does not signal open-mindedness. It’s dogmatic and close-minded

57. Silencing men forces weird results with the LGBTQ movement – Do biological females lose their right to speak if they identify as a male? What if they have been pregnant before, but still identify as a male? What if a biological male identifies as a female, does that person get their voice back?

58. “No womb, no say” discriminates against intersex people – Some people are born with male and female sex organs, or with some other gender-ambiguating condition. Yet, the “no womb, no say” argument operates on a simple binary notion that women can speak up but not men. How traditionally “male” must a man be before he’s “man” enough to qualify in the eyes of pro-choice tone-police? Intersex people, just like everyone else, have the same general right to speak out about abortion, no matter who is trying to silence them.

59. Silent men have done enough damage already – Far too many men are passive, wimpy, indifferent loafers, too selfish and scared to protect, support, and honor the women in their lives. So, it’s no surprise when those women end up having an abortion because they never had the support network they needed. No gentleman stepped in as a husband, a brother, a friend, or a father, to lend the support she needed to choose life. Brothers, this should not be.

These are just the first 59 reasons I could come up with. But that’s more than enough to prove that “no womb, no say” is a myth. Silencing men is a popular pro-choice tactic designed to smother opposition and shame men into silence. It’s worked well over the years. Perhaps if more men had stepped into the mix with a gentle voice of concern or a careful word of wisdom, then we might not be in this predicament, staring at an abortion total that dwarfs the holocaust eleven-fold, literally. Men, your voice matters. Don’t just stand quietly on the sidelines hoping that your wives, sisters, daughters, and female friends will all do the right thing. Speak up! A word of compassion and truth just might make the difference between life and death.

Recommended Resources: 

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi

/by

59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion

If you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower.

 

Why should men be silent? – The “No Womb, No Say” Position   

Just being honest here, some men probably do need to shut their pie hole, but that’s because they’re lying, manipulative, idiot, blowhards. I’m sure you’ve met a few of those. Fortunately, that’s not every man. Some men have a word worth hearing. They can even have a timely word of protest against abortion. Sadly, a lot of people still believe that men have no right to protest abortion. This is the “no womb, no say” position.

Now “no womb, no say” is all sorts of wrong, but it’s not entirely wrong. We have to admit a kernel of truth to this popular maneuver. According to Captain Obvious, “Men can’t get pregnant.” Men don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant, carry a child to term, or have an abortion. We’ll never squirt out a seven-pound chunk of living flesh unless we have an organ removed. Abortion directly impacts women in the most intimate way. But, for men, it’s always indirect and it’s never as intimate.

There’s also a history of sexism getting in the way of things. Even today, it’s not hard, to find dark alleys, studios, and industries where women are treated terribly. Liberals and conservatives can debate about the extent of that problem, but we can all agree that there have been many cases of genuine sexism against women. We can also agree that one of the key reasons for the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling was an attempt at equalizing rights for women. Today, most all of us can agree, across political aisles and in every sector of society, that women have (or should have) an equal or greater voice on the subject of abortion.

But no one, in good conscience, should grant that women have the only voice on abortion. Given the scale of abortion (66 million in the U.S., 1.7 billion globally), and it’s profound and lasting effects on families, communities, nations, and the whole world, it is unconscionable to exclude fully half society from that pregnant conversation. Here are…

59 Reasons Why Men Need To Speak Out About Abortion

  1. If men can make abortion-choice policy they can unmake it – seven old white guys legalized it nationally in Roe v. Wade (1973), and four white guys and one black guy helped overturn it.[1] If the men on the Supreme Court were to refuse to comment on abortion in pertinent cases, that would amount to a miscarriage of justice and dereliction of duty.
  2. Men played a huge role in creating abortion-culture, we owe it to society to clean up our mess – Men have been known to support abortion policy, coerce women into abortion, abuse women, abandon families, and do various things that pressure women into having an abortion. Not all men are doing this, but all men should be working to undo the mess we’ve made.
  3. Men can protest abortion just as non-slaves can protest slavery, and white people can protest racism– if we don’t have to be black or a slave to oppose racism and slavery, then we don’t have to be women to oppose abortion. Bear in mind, abortion-choice policy currently permits race-based and gender-based abortion. So, abortion is not just analogous to racism and sexism, abortion policy is racist and sexist. And everyone should oppose those things.
  4. Men can support the pro-life cause just like they supported women’s suffrage (voting) – Early feminists (A.K.A., First Wave), were committed to women’s suffrage and openly rejected abortion. They argued that it would lead to exploitation and violence against women. Men can unite with the better parts of feminism by agreeing with voting rights, and opposing abortion, just like they did.
  5. For men to comply with abortion-choice policy is suspiciously self-serving – Man-boy syndrome is real folks, and abortion is a factor. The latest numbers on marriage show our marriage rate is declining. Traditional marriages haven’t been faring too well since the sexual revolution, and definitely not since Roe v. Wade (1973). Yet across world history, the most effective means for civilizing males on large scale is with marriage and fatherhood. Abortion-choice culture makes it easier to avoid both. In the old days, unplanned pregnancy led to a shotgun wedding. That’s not the best way to do things, but at least no one died from it. Now, abortion-choice interrupts the ceremony, “Stop the Wedding! She’s not pregnant!” Plus, abortion-choice is also portrayed as liberation for women, like it’s some great equalizer, empowering women to be on level ground with men in society. In reality, abortion standardized a roving “masculine” sexuality that never served well for women’s flourishing. Women have been lamenting ever since 1973 how much harder it is to find a good man who’s willing to settle down and start a family. Why on earth would a man settle down and start a family when his aggressive, roving, independent nature yearns to spread his seed wherever he can and virtually nothing in society discourages him from doing so? It’s not like he needs to procreate a boy child to inherit his kingdom, or have a gaggle of kiddos to help him run the farm. Abortion did not dignify the feminine distinctives of child-birth and motherhood. Instead, it weaponized maternity, aiming the kill shot at their own child-in-utero. Meanwhile, non-committal man-boys can slink into the night without even a paternity suit to reel them back in. Abortion-choice works like a “get out of jail free” card for all the immature, predatory, and boyish males who think marriage and fatherhood are prison.
  6. Abortion is not just a women’s issue – the fallout from abortion isn’t limited to women, so it’s not just a “women’s issue.” It’s an “everyone issue.”
  7. Abortion kills males too (in utero) – Its effects aren’t limited to women
  8. Abortion impacts family court and paternity rights – Its effects really aren’t limited to women.
  9. Abortion hurts boyfriends, lovers, and male friends – It still isn’t limited to women.
  10. Abortion can traumatize fathers and grandfathers too – Did I mention it’s not limited to women.
  11. Abortion can traumatize brothers, sons, and extended male family – Yup, it’s not limited to women.
  12. Abortion can traumatize male medical professionals – Yet again, if you haven’t gotten the picture yet, its effects aren’t limited to women.
  13. Abortion can hurt marriages and families – Oh yeah, the effects aren’t limited to women.
  14. Abortion can harm churches, neighborhoods, and communities – Ditto.
  15. Abortion can damage the moral health of culture, society, and whole nations – Ditto times two.
  16. Some abortion survivors are men – Ditto times three. It would be patently absurd to claim that a man who has been maimed by a botched abortion, like Nik Hoot, has no right to speak against abortion. People who’ve been harmed by abortion have a vested personal interest in trying to protect others from abortion.
  17. As long as abortion is about human rights then all humans have a rightful voice on the matter – Abortion is about women’s rights, but it’s also about human rights broadly since it presses the question about when exactly do developing humans in utero acquire human rights.
  18. Female-led Organizations like Live Action , Eagle Forum, and Silent No More, encourage men to speak up on the issue – There is no unified voice, from women, telling men to shut up about abortion. Quite the opposite, females who are mobilized vocal and influential can be found encouraging pro-life men to speak up.
  19. Many other women don’t want men to be silent on abortion – Feminists are divided on several issues, including this one. Some women are happy to let a gentleman open their door, carry their groceries, and speak out against abortion. Often these women are quite liberated, empowered, and flourishing without any concern whatsoever about patriarchal oppression or toxic masculinity. They are too busy enjoying their family and exercising their freedom to be bothered with p*ssy hats and progressive politics. Maternal feminists, like Christina Hoff Sommers, typically appreciate the role of active, vocal, and even protective men in their lives, especially when it comes to issues as big as abortion.
  20. Medical experts, on abortion, are often men – Silencing them amounts to willful ignorance. They are worth hearing.
  21. Legal experts, on abortion, are often men – Ignorance is bad. Male experts are worth hearing.
  22. Scientific experts, on abortion, are often men – Ignorance is still bad. And male experts are still worth hearing.
  23. It’s an overreach – Neither women nor men have the right or the authority to demand each other to collectively shut up about anything.
  24. Men can offer relational and emotional support – When a pregnant woman wants to choose life so long as she can find some encouragement from a trusted male friend or family member, in that case, the “no womb, no say” position muffles those men, leaving that woman less support in their time of need. Women often see trusted male friends as allies, not enemies. So, they welcome a male perspective as words from a trusted friend.
  25. If men can help a woman have an abortion, then they should at least be able to help her not have one – Demanding that men show support or stay out of it, even at the expense of their conscience, is to demand that they be cowards, immoral, or both. Civilized society should not wish for men to be immoral cowards.

***Stay Tuned for part 2  with reasons number 26-59 on “Why Men Need to Speak up!” ***

References:

[1] Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned abortion-choice policy at the federal level, finding that there is no constitutional protection for abortion. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Doe v. Bolton (1973) and subsequent cases built on those rulings like Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992). The Dobbs decision did not however overturn abortion-choice policy at the state level. States still have the legal right install, regulate, or ban abortion-choice at the state level.

Recommended Resources:

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi

/by