Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

A Compassionate Response to Alistair Begg’s ‘Bad Advice’ on LGBT Weddings

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Some time has passed since controversial advice resurfaced from popular preacher Alistair Begg on his radio program, “Truth for Life.” The controversy revolves around Pastor Begg shocking a grandmother with the advice to not only attend her grandson’s transgender wedding but also to buy them a gift.

To reinforce the grandmother attending the trans wedding, pastor Begg prefaced it by saying, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.'”

Days following the backlash Begg and his ministry received, a spokesman for “Truth for Life” published this statement: “Alistair’s advice to the inquirer was that of a grandfather [Mr. Begg] seeking to help a believing grandmother maintain a relationship with her unbelieving [grandchild] and was in no way an endorsement of the unbiblical ceremony.”

Before delving into my thoughts on Alistair Begg’s troubling advice, I want to express my deep appreciation for him. Pastor Begg is undoubtedly one of our era’s most humble and thought-provoking preachers. His profound biblical teachings have significantly nurtured my faith and honed my pastoral skills. My forthcoming comments are solely in response to his controversial remarks. They should not be misconstrued as a critique of his admirable character, his unwavering love for the Bible, or his impactful public ministry.

Against this background, I will present three areas of biblical doctrine that will act as direct confirmation to pastor Begg that his advice is inconsistent with what he believes doctrinally and reveals a compromise that caters to the sexual revolution currently undermining Christian ethics.

Compromise #1: Attending an LGBT wedding overlooks God’s identity of male and female

Before Begg shared his insights, he inquired if the grandmother had made it clear to her grandson that attending a trans wedding does not necessarily mean endorsing LGBT ideology. While this is an important consideration, it still leaves an unresolved issue that Begg overlooks – what exactly is being celebrated at an LGBT wedding?

Answer: A gay couple’s sexuality. A trans person believing they are a different gender than what God gave them at birth.

Let us now compare that with what the Bible says about humanity. From the beginning, God made humans with two biological sexes, male and female. God did not make male and female “according to their own kind” but in the likeness of Himself—making the two fit together in a complementary (suitable) way for each other (Genesis 2:18-20).

Although God made us sexual creatures, our sexuality, however, is not our identity. It is not what defines us. Sexuality merely explains an aspect of our identity. It is not who we are but how we are. Anything that runs contrary to God’s design is dishonorable to Him and is not (in any way) to be excused, ignored, or celebrated.

Just to be clear, Begg wholeheartedly affirms the Bible and never in any of his preaching condones homosexuality or transgenderism. In fact, in 2022, Pastor Begg preached a sermon at Parkside Church from the very contentious Romans 1:26-27 passage, in which he said, “Why would I ever come here and do verses 26 and 27 unless I absolutely believed that the Bible is God’s Word that it is unerring, and it speaks truth, even on a Sunday morning like this in 2022. We’re not at liberty to rewrite the Bible to accommodate godless perspectives on abortion, on euthanasia, on same-sex marriage, on transgenderism, and more. We’re not.”

That is why it is even more troubling to hear Begg advocating for Christians to attend an LGBT wedding.

How is the presence of a Christian attending a wedding an act of love when the couple at the altar is a public display of the sexualized revolution that vehemently opposes God’s creational order?

How does this demonstrate the Christian’s respect for God, others, and their personal beliefs?

Christians are duty-bound to uphold God’s standards for what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman.

Compromise #2: Attending an LGBT wedding undermines God’s definition of marriage between a man and a woman

According to the Word of God, marriage is a sacred union intended to be shared between a man and a woman. It reflects the desire for intimacy that God instilled in men and women. Faithfully being married and sharing in sexual intimacy is considered one of the most rewarding relationships created by God.

For this reason, Begg’s comments are more than a “agree-to-disagree” matter between Christians. Striving to be a practitioner, Begg exaggerated the perception that not attending is a sign of rejection rather than acknowledging the mandate to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:8).

Attending an LGBT wedding or any other ceremony that goes against biblical teachings raises the question of whether we should ignore Jesus’s teachings for the sake of our witness. According to Jesus (see Matthew 19:4-9), divorcing and remarrying without biblical grounds is considered adultery. So, do we apply Begg’s same reasoning to attending such a wedding?

Again, this flawed reasoning contradicts what we read in Scripture. The answer lies in understanding the Bible’s teachings about marriage and human sexuality. Hebrews 13:4 states, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” Here, the writer of Hebrews maintains the sacredness of sexual intimacy within the marriage bond while, at the same time, warning of God’s judgment on those who commit sexual immorality and adultery.

While it is essential to love and show respect to all individuals, any “marriage” that goes against God’s standards is not something Christians should support. Otherwise, they may be perceived to support a union that deviates from God’s divine design and, therefore, be judged for passively allowing people to celebrate their sin.

Compromise #3: Attending an LGBT wedding actually weakens a Christian’s witness

In his final comments about attending an LGBT wedding, Begg concluded, “We’re going to have to take that risk a lot more if we want to build bridges into the hearts and lives of those who don’t understand Jesus and don’t understand that he is a King.”

What exactly does Begg mean when he says Christians are ‘going to have to take that risk a lot more’?

Is Begg suggesting that Christians should attend a “gay” wedding for the gospel’s sake? Yes, I think that is the real motivation behind Begg’s advice. The potential harm this could cause a Christian is far more significant, however, than he implies.

It is false to say that attending an LGBT wedding is a sign of true love and “building bridges.” If anything, the Christian who attends an LGBT wedding is risking their witness before God and man. Not the reverse. This does not mean that Christians should act in judgment or condemnation towards those with different beliefs or lifestyles. It is important, however, to consider how our actions may be perceived by others while remaining true to our convictions.

Let us not sugarcoat it. Your presence as a Christian speaks volumes at an LGBT wedding, but not because the gay-affirming wedding party is blown away by your showing up. Instead, your presence signifies that they have persuaded another Christian to (in some small way) embrace inclusivity despite any pressures or convictions.

Do you remain silent when the Wedding Officiant asks if anyone objects to this marriage? If you do, are you indicating your approval to the couple and everyone in attendance? When the couple kiss and are announced married, do you smile and cheer? When everyone raises a glass to the couple, do you raise yours in solidarity?

In his thoughtful article, “Should Christians Attend Gay Weddings? Does It Matter Whether They’re Religious or Secular?” Randy Alcorn clears things up by writing,

“When you attend a gay person’s birthday party, you’re joining in celebrating their birthday, right? That’s great. When you invite your gay or lesbian friend over for dinner, you’re celebrating friendship and life—no problem. When you toast to good health, great. But when you raise your glass and toast to a wedding that you are convinced dishonors God, or is not a true wedding at all, isn’t that radically different?”

Attending an LGBT wedding can be seen as giving a blessing to the gay or trans couple. This is not a risk any Christian should be willing to take in order to stand as a witness for Christ.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, your ultimate goal is to obey His commandments and fulfill His purpose for your life. The primary commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (Matthew 22:36-40). As a devout Christian, your priority is not primarily focused on making and maintaining friendships. Instead, you are called to dedicate yourself to serving God rather than pleasing others. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul questions whether he seeks approval from man or God. He emphasizes that seeking favor from man alone would make him inadequate as a “servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).

A loving relationship should not be limited to whether you attend a gay wedding. You can show love for your gay or trans friend or family member by respectfully declining to attend their wedding. Let them know how much you love and care for them but that your relationship with Jesus comes first, and you hope they can respect that about you. You can still love your gay or trans friend or family member in other ways. You can support and show love for your LGBT community by communicating openly, being friendly, and valuing their worth as individuals created in God’s image.

Pastor Begg and I may not see eye-to-eye when it comes to attending an LGBT wedding, but despite our disagreement, I pray for him and his ministry. I hope that one day, he will change his heart on this issue. Until then, I will remain hopeful and seek to preserve the unity in the body of Christ.

What is Woke?

Culture and Politics, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

A recent Huffington Post article about homeschool moms left me flabbergasted. I know, it’s HuffPo. I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but this article was truly shocking . . . because of the comments of the homeschool parents.

In the article, a curriculum developer is selling her books at homeschool conventions. She calls her trade a “girl-empowerment business.” Homeschool parents were rightly curious about the political slant of a historical curriculum and asked if this particular series was “woke.” The authors of the curriculum, asked “What do you mean by that?” (hat tip to Greg Koukl).[i] Now here is the troubling part. The homeschool parents didn’t know the answer. They knew they didn’t want woke, but they weren’t sure what they were rejecting or didn’t know how best to explain it. One exchange with the curriculum’s presenter went this way:

“I [the author] explain our product, how we use historical women to teach girls about their worth and potential. The mother says: “But is it woke? I mean, I don’t want to teach my daughter about woke.”

“What do you mean, ‘woke’?” I ask. . . She opens her mouth. Half-words and phrases stumble and tumble around. A few talking points from news sources fall out. Finally, she sighs. “I don’t know. Just tell me again what you write.”

How heartbreaking this article was to read! I totally expected our homeschool crowd to get this right, so when they didn’t, I immediately wanted to equip all Christian parents to be able to answer this question. We should strive to always understand the terms we use—especially if we are going to loudly reject it. By defining our terms, we can better learn how to help our kids navigate these muddy cultural waters.

Don’t just label things “Woke” without being able to explain why.

Woke has become an easy catch-all word to label things that are very liberal or progressive, or even just the things we disagree with ideologically. We find it far easier to label things as “woke” to indicate, “Danger! Toxic! Avoid this!”, rather than to take the time to research it for ourselves. But that hasty labeling risks yeeting the baby with the bathwater. And it doesn’t teach people how to chew through their ideological food, swallowing the meat, and spitting out the gristle (i.e., what doesn’t align with biblical Christianity).[ii] You don’t have to go read Mein Kampf or The God Delusion, but if you need to read complicated material, you’ll need to do so wisely, especially if you want to help your family and friends to do the same. If you don’t know why you avoid woke movies or books, they won’t understand how to navigate these concepts for themselves.

The HuffPo article helped us see that the word “woke,” the grammatical aberration that it is, is not going away. We need to know what it means when others use it and learn better questions to ask or terms to use that offer more clarity.

**Where did the word Woke come from?**

Are you awake yet? Stay awake. These phrases began to circulate generally in the African-American community and gained traction around the time of George Floyd’s death, suggesting that people needed to be aware of racism or to stay vigilant, so they are not harmed or mistreated by racism.[iii] When people described the process of becoming racially aware, they would say they woke up, and people began to use the term woke to imply that they were awake to what is happening and staying on top of the situation.

But the term evolved as the African American community started using woke to describe people that had been awakened to or were conscious of social, economic and racial inequalities, had ‘done the work’, and were educated about social injustice. However, the work produced by some of these scholars and authors often had a significant political slant, and conservatives began using the term as a negative insult. And busy parents, like myself, just adopted the word as a ‘no-no’ and moved on with our lives. We’re trying to survive sports practices, science fairs, and flu season. We don’t have time to pee in private, much less read every book and article that comes our way. Labeling things ‘mark and avoid’ is a survival skill. But it’s important, when you’re not in survival mode, to take a beat and learn what you mean by terms like woke.

**What does Woke mean now?**

In popular usage today, “woke” tends to mean something that has a left-leaning, liberal, or progressive slant especially regarding race issues. Additional characteristics of wokeism are extreme political correctness, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), and cancel culture. Woke resources often view everything through a lens of critical theory which, applied to race, becomes “critical race theory” (CRT).

What is CRT?

Uh oh, another boogeyman buzz word that is hard to define. Critical theory (which includes race theory, queer theory, etc.) basically critiques society by dividing people into oppressor vs. oppressed based on which groups they belong to. People are defined more by their group affiliation rather than seen for who they are as individuals. Humans are seen as naturally good until societal evils warp them. Then the voices of those who have been historically oppressed are given greater authority to speak due to their lived experiences. Experiences are too subjective to use as a foundation for truth, which is why Christians stand on the solid foundation of God’s word, balanced with rational thought, logic, and empirical truths. Considering the experiences of others helps us understand how policies and laws influence lives, which is a critical part of loving our neighbors as ourselves. In practice, however, critical theory creates new oppression as a solution for prior oppression. This dynamic results in less equality and more prejudice.

Leviticus 19:15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” (ESV)

While our current zeitgeist of radical empathy would suggest that truly being fair would mean to favor the oppressed in order to right historical mistreatment, the Bible holds a different standard. All humans are made in the image of God, and we want to avoid lenses that strip people of that dignity while conferring greater dignity to others.

**How does woke show up in our daily lives?**

In practice, woke often means using revisionist history to paint historical figures with a broad brush. It is often profoundly anti-American, sometimes Marxists, and overly critical of western civilization (think 1619 Project). When discussing books or curriculum, woke can mean something that presents only leftist viewpoint or oversimplifies a complex issue by vilifying people of the past unfairly. Some people in the past were straight-up villains, like our favorite whipping-boy Adolf Hitler. But most historical figures were complex, not all good or all bad. We need to treat them as whole persons as much as we can with the information available to us by studying history fully, considering the facts from primary sources as well as commentaries from historians.

Additionally, wokeness is deeply tied to social justice. Radical gender theory and LGBTQIA+ issues would now fall under the inclusion umbrella. Woke resources for children would include materials that separate gender from biological sex and present various parent structures as normal in children’s books, but also might include graphic sexual materials, even depicting homosexual or pedophilic sexual acts. But it’s important to note that not everyone who considers themselves “woke” agrees in supporting these extreme examples.

A Word of Warning

In discussing wokeness, we’re touching on some tangled and complicated issues. We do well to exercise caution and humility. The book of Hebrews offers an important insight here:

Hebrews 5:14 reminds us, “But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Our powers of discernment must be trained through constant practice. So, as we grapple with a shifting sense of “wokeness,” ask good questions, always comparing the world’s messages against God’s truths. Seek to understand. Weigh your words with humility and respect. Find common ground where you can, and balance truth with love. “Woke” is a heavy word, with lots of baggage. And it isn’t going away.

So, stay alert my friends.

References:

[i] Greg Koukl has made famous the “Columbo tactic”, a tool for apologists where they ask probing questions like “What do you mean by that?” to better clarify and assess the situation. See, Greg Koukl, Tactics, 10^th Anniversary Edition: A Gameplan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019).

[ii] This concept is called the “Chew and Spit method”, see Hillary Morgan Ferrer, et al., Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2019), 47-62.

[iii] Editor’s Note: Historically, the word “woke” originally meant something like “stay alert.” Black Americans in the early 20^th century and Jim Crow era would warn each other saying “stay woke,” meaning be on guard against threats of race-based violence, especially where there was an uptick in racial tensions (ex., recent Klan activity, rape-accusations, lynching, police harassment, etc). In recent years, the term reentered public discourse through Black Lives Matter (BLM), and the George Floyd protests in Ferguson Missouri (2014), where the term was resurrected with a similar meaning of “stay alert [to racial violence/injustice].” Arguably, BLM was already adapting the term at that time by infusing it with politically charged notions of social justice, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and Queer Theory. Regardless, the term has since been coopted and adapted by political progressives to cover a wider range of left-leaning issues, but instead of referring to alertness and racism specifically it’s now cast as a kind of “enlightenment” where people are finally able to see – as if waking up from a dreamy delusion – how oppressive power dynamics more or less shape the course of human history and modern society, regarding race, gender, sexuality, marriage and family, economics, politics, environment/climate, etc.

Pro-Life Apologetics from Scott Klusendorf’s The Case for Life

Culture and Politics, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

The debate over abortion remains one of society’s most divisive issues. Pro-life advocates argue for the rights of the unborn, emphasizing the sanctity of life from conception and advocating for policies to protect fetal humans. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates defend the right of individuals to make autonomous decisions about their bodies and reproductive health. Amid these deeply held convictions are discussions about the moral status of the unborn, making it a debate that is both intimate and public, personal and political.

Everyone Has An Equal Right to Life . . . Or Not

In his book, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture, pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf writes, “The question of truth and of human value are driving our national debates on abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).”[1] Klusendorf goes on to say, “The debates are contentious because they involve deep worldview commitments that get to the heart of who and what we are as people. But the debate itself is not complex. Either you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life or you don’t.”[2]

Klusendorf’s point encapsulates the underlying significance of this pro-life and pro-choice debate. The issue at hand goes beyond mere personal preference or opinion. It delves into fundamental questions about truth, human worth, and the essence of our existence. The complexity arises from the contrasting worldview commitments that shape our perspectives.

From Conception Onward

As Christians, we base our belief on the principle that every human being, starting from the moment of conception, has an equal and undeniable right to life. This belief aligns with the biblical truth that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by our Creator. Therefore, each individual deserves to be loved, protected, and respected from the moment of conception.

When we adopt the perspective from pro-life apologetics, we become active participants in the ongoing national conversations regarding the inherent worth and dignity of every unborn life. Given this moral issue’s sensitive and divisive nature, however, it is essential to approach pro-life apologetics with compassion and respect, striving to engage in constructive dialogue with those who may hold opposing views. By understanding and articulating the pro-life argument utilizing logic, science, and philosophy, you can effectively advocate for protecting innocent lives.[3]

The Case for Life Argument

In his book, “The Case for Life,” Klusendorf lays out a clear argument supporting the pro-life position. The crux of his argument centers around the idea that unborn human life has dignity and intrinsic value, deserving protection from the moment of conception. Klusendorf’s argument is presented in a syllogism (a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion).

Major Premise: It is morally wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Minor Premise: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Klusendorf’s explains his first premise in terms of the inherent value of human life and the nearly universally acknowledged ethical standard that taking innocent life is wrong. To develop his secondary premise he introduces some biological and philosophical grounding, asserting that human life commences at conception, thus human embryos and fetuses as integral members of the human community. By merging these two premises, Klusendorf reaches the conclusion that abortion – which, by definition, kills and unborn human being – is ethically unjustifiable.

Answering Objections

Klusendorf addresses common objections to this argument, such as claims that the unborn are not “persons” with rights or that women have a right to bodily autonomy that overrides the rights of the unborn. He critiques these objections by asserting that no morally relevant difference between the unborn and those already born would justify killing the former.

In short, Klusendorf’s pro-life argument presents a solid philosophical and moral framework that upholds the equal value of all human life from the moment of conception. Based on this premise, he convincingly concludes that abortion is inherently wrong.

If You’re Pro-Life, You Need This Book

Incorporating Scott Klusendorf’s teachings into pro-life advocacy can help believers engage in meaningful conversations about the value of life from a Christian perspective. By standing up for the dignity of all human beings, including those yet to be born and advocating against abortion, we honor God’s gift of life and promote a culture that cherishes every individual as precious in His sight, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of human life.

References:

[1] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians To Engage the Culture. 2d ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 2.

[2] Klusendorf 2023, 2.

[3] Editor’s Note: “The pro-life argument” refers not to a single line of argument but rather to a broad category of arguments. Klusendorf’s prolife argument is one of the most popular and widely respected, but there are other ways to argue the prolife position. One could focus on debunking abortion-choice claims, or discrediting abortion-choice culture, or exposing problems in abortion-choice policy. Or one could argue that abortion-choice advocates carry the heavier burden of proof, since they are arguing for killing, and have so far failed to resolve that burden of proof. Or one could argue that reasonable doubt regarding the status of the unborn is sufficient cause for provisional protection. There are many ways to argue the pro-life position, even if Klusendorf’s line of argument is one of the best overall arguments to work with.

Post-Christianity… What’s That?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

There has been a new term floating around the Evangelisphere (if that’s a word, if it’s not, let’s coin it) in the last few years: “post-Christian.”

FreeThinking Ministries[i] recently changed some verbiage on the website to indicate that the mission of the ministry is to equip the church to engage with the post-Christian culture.

Some might say, “you (FTM) minister to all sorts of people all over the globe. You ought to relate to culture in general” not just the post-Christian parts of culture. Yes, this concern covers both pre- and post-Christian cultures and everything in between. But acknowledging that we live and operate within a largely post-Christian culture is still important if we are to equip the church in the West, and in America more particularly, with relevant strategies for preaching the gospel and discipling believers within it.

Coopting Christian Values

There are many reasons this new dynamic is important, but chief among them is that post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes. This penchant is markedly different from a pre-Christian culture which might have hints of Christian ethics within their culture but without explanation.

“Post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes.” – Josh Klein

Guideposts to the Gospel

In a pre-Christian culture these features can be used as guideposts to the gospel. As former missionary Don Richardson points out in his book Eternity in Their Hearts:

“It was the gospel of Jesus Christ which made the difference for Celts, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. And that is exactly what it will take for Asmat headhunter-cannibals (indigenous group in New Guinea)! All someone has to do is go to live among the Asmat and communicate the gospel as effectively as someone once communicated it to the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and other tribes of Northern Europe!”[ii]

The communication of the gospel to pre-Christian nations is much simpler compared to the work of maintaining the gospel in a Christianized nation. It is simpler, but simple doesn’t mean easy. As someone that has multiple friends in the mission field of pre-Christian cultures I can certainly attest to the fact that it is extremely difficult. It can, however, be much simpler to introduce the gospel and connect the dots in their cultural context than it is to attempt to reestablish orthodoxy in cultures that have moved beyond Christianity.

What is a post-Christian culture?

A post-Christian culture is one that has been reached by the gospel, Christianized (to a large extent) and then sought to leave its Christian roots behind.

All the cultures Richardson mentioned in the above quote have followed this pattern. At one point, these cultures were pagan non-Christian nations only to have the gospel of Jesus Christ rock them and change them for hundreds of years. Then, after Christianity, in large part, brought peace and prosperity they chose to move beyond it and, often, back to their pagan roots, only with a twist. The paganism became more syncretistic or New-Age than it was in 600AD but the reversion back to it is palpable. Sound familiar?

The United States has been on this path for quite some time and so too, a reversion to certain forms of paganism. The hallmarks of post-Christian society are coming to fruition before our eyes and the Church in the west must learn how to respond.

Often, as Don Richardson argues, in non-Christian cultures one can find cultural hooks on which to contextualize the gospel in a way that makes sense and draws people in. In these cultures, there is a clarity on what C.S. Lewis called the Natural Law that even those who had never heard of God or Jesus would recognize.[iii] Even if some of the “Natural Laws” within the culture were twisted by sin, the reasoning behind these cultural expectations were based on objective morality, integrity, and honor.

For instance, in another book called Peace Child, Richardson outlines the way he was able to communicate the gospel with a head-hunting tribe in New Guinea called the Sawi.[iv] The Sawi had a rule of natural law called a “Peace Child” between warring tribes and it was this concept that opened their hearts to the gospel after previously believing that Judas was the hero of the gospel story.

How Post-Christian Culture Differs

The story in a post-Christian culture is very different. The stories of the Bible have been popularized, modernized, colloquialized, and made into idioms. We see this assimilation in all sorts of discourse. When one sports team takes on another that is heavily favored the pundits will often use the phrase, “it’s a real David and Goliath match-up.” Decidedly Christian and biblical principles are popularized and culturized as well, such as the golden rule, which is taken from Matthew 7:12 whether people realize it or not, or “with great power comes great responsibility” which is borrowed and changed from Luke 12:48 and popularized by the Spiderman comic franchise. And that is only to name a select few.

Unbiblical phrases have been mixed with the spiritual cultural ethos as well. Sayings like, “God only helps those who help themselves,” or “don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.”

It is not so much that people in this culture are ignorant about Jesus but that they think they knows Jesus too well already. Jesus as a figure is often popular within the post-Christian culture [v] but ultimately, upon further examination, it is not the same Jesus we find in the Bible.[vi] The exclusivity of Christ is an issue.

Christianity’s Role in a Post-Christian Culture?

A post-Christian culture is aware of the claims of Christianity but finds them only utilitarian. Often, the question becomes not are these claims literally true but rather, are they efficacious? As one pastor, who led a breakout session recently on evangelism in a post-Christian culture that I attended, said:

“It is not that unbelievers in our post-Christian culture want to know if Christianity is true. It is that they want to know if it works. We need to show them that it works.”

– Bob Thune, Within Reach Conference, 19 January 2023.

His diagnosis is correct, but his prescription lacks the call to gospel exclusivity. A lot of different things “work” for a lot of different people. Buddhists would adamantly insist that the spirituality of Buddhism works for them. This same sentiment seems to be share among at least 60% of self-professed Christians who indicate that Jesus is not the only way to God.[vii]

Even in the atheistic sphere this utilitarian philosophy of religion, and Christianity in particular, seems to be making headway. One such view is espoused by Bret Weinstein, a former college professor and avowed atheist. Weinstein argues that metaphorical truths are necessary to order the world even if they are not literally true.

Not True, but Useful

He goes on to indicate that while something may be literally false its usefulness as a heuristic for ordering the world around us should not be discarded. In a conversation with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, Weinstein puts it this way:

“If it were true that religious heuristics actually increase wellbeing by allowing people to, on average, operate in the world in a way that increases wellbeing, what would you say about them then?”[viii]

This is utilitarianism. So long as the theological position works for me (or society) it ought to be followed. Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen prey to this line of thinking. They see Bret Weinstein’s refusal to discard religion as a sort of intellectual victory.

If religious belief is simply a useful heuristic for ordering the world it removes the power of the gospel and offers a gospel of its own making. Anything then, can be the gospel, so long as it works for you or for a society. I find Sam Harris’s retort worth considering in this exchange:

“But [belief in God] wouldn’t make sense for the right reason. Useful fictions have to be retired at some point. Useful truths stay true . . . You can have a completely rational conversation, in terms of human psychology, sociology, and what you want society to look like – about moral truths like the corrosive nature of pornography . . . You don’t have to invoke mythology to do that.”[ix]

As much as I hate to admit it Harris is mostly right here. His position is more tenable to the human pursuit of truth than Weinstein’s. While it might sit better with religious pluralists, secularists, and even some Christians to hear that religious thought is still useful to order society insofar as we have no better option, it is less than helpful. Harris is correct, it is either true that God exists, or it is not true, and any opining for metaphorical truths to be embraced to have our cake and eat it too simply makes belief utilitarian rather than necessary.

It is not enough that a certain belief system works, and the Church must not fall into the trap of trying to prove that it does. Because the gospel only promises things yet to be seen and grasped, it does not prove that life will be ultimately understandable or easy. Buddhism might work inasmuch as one uses it to accomplish inner peace (whatever that means), or structure to the world. Whether it is truly useful or not, however, rests on its being objectively true.

Competing Gospels

In a post-Christian culture, we are struck, not with opposing religious truth claims, but with opposing gospels that promise to bring about hope, satisfaction, and peace. These competing gospels can often invoke the name of Jesus. In fact, progressive Christianity has made its hay on becoming a heuristic style gospel and should serve as a warning to believers embracing Weinstein’s thoughts.

In a post-Christian culture, words like truth, love, hope, and affirmation have all been personalized and redefined to suit our utilitarian mindset. Progressive Christianity, for instance, does not so much ask what is true but offers that whatever feels most loving is true. This is something new to the Western church, and it is a competing gospel that is nefarious because of its ability to morph from person to person under the guise of usefulness.

A post-Christian culture seeks to use aspects of Christianity without maintaining the foundation of it. This idea is not new. In the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant sought to square the circle of unbelief and the usefulness of Christianity as a moral framework for society.[x] Removing Christ from the center of morality places the individual as the arbiter of it. Kant reasoned that we only know Jesus as moral exemplar because we already have fashioned the highest ideal of what a moral man ought to look like, thus, we judged Christ before he was incarnate.

But this is, of course, exactly backwards to the Christian tradition. Christ is not simply a moral exemplar because we could not imagine a higher moral standard. He is the moral exemplar because He sets the highest moral standard in Himself as He reveals Himself in the scriptures. Objective moral values are discovered not invented.

Revising Christ

A post-Christian culture sheds the skin of orthodoxy, in a sense, and embraces the subjective nature of the moral good. That is to say that Christ is edited by the moral arbiters of the day. Did Jesus ever really say that homosexuality was a sin or that he was divine? A post-Christian culture can construct a morality borrowing from Christianity, secularism, and other religions and superimpose it on itself. We see a rise in moral language, even invoking the name of Christ, at the same time as the normalization of historically immoral behaviors such as polyamory, pornography, and earth worship. It is this propensity of the culture to which I am referring when I say that evangelism and ministry in a post-Christian culture is more complex than within a non-Christian culture.

Often, the language barrier is an issue. When we speak of justice, love, truth, and fulfillment we are speaking cross-culturally, but because of the Christian past, ideas about Jesus have been erroneously imposed on these new definitions. To make headway we must first establish coherent agreement at the most basic levels, but this is made difficult because the culture, allegedly has progressed beyond the need for foundational truths. The truth of the gospel is inverted to focus mainly on self-actualization and feelings of being an authentic self. This inversion might not challenge missionaries and pastors in pre-Christian settings, but it’s a primary concern for those doing ministry within a post-Christian context.

Post-Christianity says, “we tried that already and now we are beyond it.” The challenge for the church is to expose this lie for what it is. How does one move beyond objective reality and truth? Incidentally, “moving beyond it” is more like reverting back to pagan roots. The worship of nature, self, sex, and hedonistic tendencies. These are not new developments, but they are experienced and promulgated anew in a post-Christian context, often maintaining the language of Christianity to bolster the regressive worship.

This shift is recent in the United States. As recent as 10 years ago political candidates from both parties affirmed the classical definition of marriage, the morality of certain sexual standards, and, even if pro-choice, the recognition that abortion was a tragedy and ought to be safe, legal, and rare.[xi]

What are we to do?

Once the culture flipped though, these supposedly self-evident truths were suddenly up for grabs. People that spent their lives arguing for reason and science to be the basis of morality in society suddenly found themselves arguing for forced vaccination [xii] and for transgenderism.[xiii] When you remove the foundation, everything becomes shaky. Then reintroducing that abandoned foundation seems antiquated. So, what are we to do?

The funny thing about a post-Christian culture is that it relies on the insular or adaptive nature of the Church. The post-Christian culture is more than happy to entertain Christians so long as they isolate themselves into their own groups and, all too often, Christians comply. This self-isolation has happened in Europe and England and it’s happening right now in Canada and the United States. As a pastor friend once said to me, “the Christian life is to be personal, but it is not private.”

On the other hand, the church might try to remain relevant by compromising historic truths for cultural cachet. We sacrifice the relevance of the gospel for the relevance of our popularity.

Neither strategy is tenable for discipling the nation. There is another option, but it is not comfortable. Engage with the post-Christian culture without compromise but with understanding (1 Chron. 12:32). There is an opportunity in a post-Christian culture if one is courageous enough to recognize it. But it comes with risk. Risk of denigration or loss of respect. At least for a time. The truth will set us free (John 8:31-32). God will not be mocked and his Church will remain victorious (Matt. 16:18).

Footnotes:

[i] The author, Josh Klein is a staff writer and speaker with Free-Thinking Ministries

[ii] Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts: Revised, Regal Books, Ventura, CA, 1984, pp. 118–119.

[iii] Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, UK: Geoffrey Bles, 1952; digitally republished as public domain, Canada: Samizdat, 2014), 13-22, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/vc/pdfs/MereChristianity_CSL.pdf

[iv] Don Richardson, Peace Child (Norwood, MA: Regal, 1985).

[v] https://www.barna.com/research/openness-to-jesus/

[vi] https://www.christianpost.com/news/60-of-young-adults-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation.html

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Originally in Jordan Peterson v. Sam Harris debate, moderated by Bret Weinstein. Vancouver BC, Canada: Pangburn Philosophy, 23 June 2018), 01:15:36-01:16:14, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1oaSt60b0om, quoted in https://epiphanyaweek.com/2019/10/20/theism-atheism-and-antitheism-sam-harris-is-wrong-part-3/.

[ix] Ibid., 01:59:03-02:00:11.

[x] https://philarchive.org/archive/PALCKJ

[xi] https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/03/toward-making-abortion-rare-shifting-battleground-over-means-end

[xii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMaHKykfdcQ

[xiii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBl9qwVDvIY

Our Children: The Greatest Mission Field

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Be assured that when the knock comes at your door, it will be unannounced, it will be warrantless, and it will come at the most inconvenient time.

The social service worker will be polite, but cool and business-like. Despite your confusion, fear, and even anger, you dare not lose your poise because that will ultimately be used against you. You will learn in short order that your refusal to cooperate will be futile; the social worker will just return with whatever government force is needed to remove your children from your home.

They’re Coming for Your Children…

After initial pleasantries, your children will be sent to a separate area where they will be questioned individually outside of your presence. You will not be told who made the accusation, only that an anonymous report has been made and the worker is compelled to do a “welfare check” on your children.

Make no mistake, the social worker will have the power to place your children in a government-approved foster care facility to “protect” them from the harmful effects that they are exposed to in your home. Then the investigation will begin in earnest with court hearings and public exposure to the “problems” created by your care of the children.

For the Crime of Christianity…

You may wonder what crime could trigger such a harsh result. Potential sexual or physical abuse? Neglect of the children’s health, medical, or nutritional needs? No. The time soon may come in America where this scenario occurs simply because you are teaching your children Christian values instead of what the secular culture and government want them to learn.

This whole picture may seem repugnant to you, and it should. It also may seem somewhat far-fetched to you, but it shouldn’t. The groundwork for this scenario is already in place. Until recently, it has been used mostly for good to address the issues of child abuse and neglect. But just as once-trusted institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department have abused their power for political purposes, it appears that the Department of Child Services in the state of Indiana has now been weaponized against conscientious Christian parents.

According to a report from the Indiana Family Institute (IFI), the Indiana DCS removed their gender-confused child out of the home of Mary and Jeremy Cox in June 2021 because of their biblically-based beliefs about sex and gender. Apparently, they were also not referring to their son with his preferred cross-gender name and pronouns, nor were they endorsing his self-identification as a girl because of their Christian faith. The overzealous case workers rationalized their demonic behavior by saying:

“We just feel that at this point in time, this child needs to be in a home that’s not going to teach her that trans, like everything about transgender … tell her how she should think and how she should feel. However, she should be in a home where she is [accepted] for who she is.” (Emphasis added)

In a moronic ruling, the family trial court in Indiana agreed with the DCS position and removed their son from the home and even went so far as to bar the parents from speaking to their son about the topic of sex and gender. This Christian mother and father then asked the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the case, but it declined.

How Will the Supreme Court Rule?

Now, they have petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review the wrongful removal of their son from their home and SCOTUS is set to hear arguments about the matter probably in their April term. Their filed petition concludes with this language:

“No other fit parent should lose custody of their child or face a government muzzle on their deeply held religious beliefs and best judgment. M.C. and J.C. have exhausted every other remedy and are gravely concerned that the state of Indiana will come for their other children. This Court’s intervention is needed.”

Indeed, unless God intervenes, SCOTUS intervention is ultimately necessary if the basic framework of the nuclear family in America is to survive. This, then, becomes one of the most crucial cases to come before our highest court in recent times including those involving abortion and same-sex “marriage.” All God-fearing eyes should be turned intently to see the ruling from SCOTUS when it is ultimately entered.

As for the Cox family, unfortunately, their confused son aged out in the “wonderful” world of Indiana foster childcare and is now an adult. Yet they continue to pursue this case to protect the rest of their children as well as your children and grandchildren and all Bible-believing families all across this nation.

KGB/Gestapo Tactics

The stark reality is that these Gestapo/KGB tactics are not confined solely to attacks on the teaching of the truths of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, it should be painfully obvious to all true Christians that our American culture is not friendly to the Bible’s message of sin, redemption, and transcendent morality. Our ruling elites do not want biblical truths passed on to the next generation because it interferes with their godless culture’s embrace of hedonistic excess.

What better way to accomplish this goal than through penetrating the minds of our innocent children with false history and false concepts of self-fulfillment while suppressing true critical thinking and logic. Their ultimate goal is an unthinking population that depends on the government for everything by creating generations who simply do what they are told and who lack the ability to evaluate real truth much less biblical truth.

This is why our vulnerable children come under attack beginning as early as preschool. Our would-be masters want to completely eradicate any thought of Christian concepts from our children’s minds before they can crystallize into true belief. Thus, they have engineered a swiftly eroding quality of our public education system along with a headlong attack against the entire family structure, beginning in the home.

We Didn’t Get Here Overnight

To be certain we did not get to this precipice overnight. Nevertheless, it is not too late for Christians to awaken from their slumber and realize that we are in a pitched battle with forces beyond our comprehension; and at stake are the precious, eternal lives of our own children and grandchildren.

As believers, we are well aware of the admonition of Paul in Ephesians 6:12, where he says:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

By the same token, we also know that these times in which we are living in our nation are too challenging; they are too grave for us to sit idly on the sidelines any longer. We are not advocating a fanatical response, but if the very lives of our precious children are at stake, then the fainthearted need not apply. How long will we allow our cherished offspring to be sacrificed on the altars of demonic absurdity?

Our Greatest Mission Field

Simply put, true Christians need to be committed to singularly focused, prayer-filled efforts to raise our children in a godly and biblically based manner, regardless of the personal cost. Our children are the greatest mission field. The spiritual upbringing of these next generations of our children and grandchildren in the only truth that matters is essential both to the survival of America and to the eternal destiny of these treasured little ones as well. The gospel of Jesus Christ is so crucial that it is a hill upon which we will stand and die if necessary. Our children – are they not worth a new revolution if that is what it takes? If we say that we really love them, isn’t it time we started acting like it?

A Christian Response to a Viral Deconversion Post

1. Does Truth Exist?, 2. Does God Exist?, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

Social media has been a popular place to share deconversion stories over the last few years, and sometimes so many people resonate with those posts that they go viral to some extent (being liked and shared by thousands of people).

There’s one that’s being shared all over Facebook right now, written this week by a lady named Myndee Mack. At the time of this writing, it has 8,000+ likes/loves, 7,000+ comments, and over 3,000+ shares. Clearly, Myndee’s post is compelling to many.

I’d like to offer a response.

While it’s possible Myndee will come across this article, I’m not writing it primarily for her, but rather for the thousands of people who find her post to be a compelling assessment of Christianity and for Christians whose friends are sharing it and want to have a thoughtful response to share. The reason I say I’m not writing it primarily for her is that a one-on-one response would be more relational and personal in nature and tone—like a letter. My purpose here is to help those challenged by her words with a more direct response to the reasoning and theological clarity/accuracy of what she wrote.

“I used to be Christian. I prayed without ceasing. I spent time in the word. I asked. I sought. I knocked until my knuckles bled. My heart was pure. My faith was at least as strong as a mustard seed. I went to Christian elementary school. I prayed the sinners prayer at 6 years old. I would beg my mom to take me to church. I had pages and pages of notes from sermons and from my own studies. I hosted women’s groups. I went to Bible college. I attended church retreats from childhood all the way through young adulthood. I taught at children’s church. I believed I was a sinner in need of a savior, and I accepted Jesus as that savior.”

Myndee sets up her post by making it clear she wasn’t a new Christian rejecting her faith. She wants us to know that she has spent many years involved with the church and presumably seeking God. We have no information on what kind of churches she was part of (certainly something I’d be curious to know about if I met her in person), but the main point here seems to be that she doesn’t want the reader to be dismissive of her.

And I think it’s important to not be.

Don’t be Dismissive

Christians often are dismissive of deconversion stories, saying, “If they walked away, they weren’t truly saved anyway.” Regardless of your view of the assurance of salvation, this is not a helpful response. When people have genuine questions and struggles that they share, we should be ready and willing to offer answers both for them and for those looking on across social media.

That said, I can’t help but note a brief sentence in here that relates to much of what she goes on to write regarding the nature of sin: “My heart was pure.” From a biblical perspective, no one’s heart is “pure.” More on that shortly.

“I was also trapped in a vicious cycle of self hatred, shame, guilt, and repentance. Bible verses such as ‘your heart is deceitful and desperately wicked’ combined with ‘you are fearfully and wonderfully made’ gave me spiritual whiplash.”

Conflicting Scripture?

It’s quite easy to pull any two verses out of the Bible and think they are in conflict if you aren’t looking at them in the context of the whole. The same could be said for virtually any book in the world. In this case, there’s a very important distinction that is missing between being fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) and having a deceitful and wicked heart (Jeremiah 17:9). The fact that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” is a statement about our design and value: We are not the process of blind, purposeless chance, but rather a purposeful creation who has been given value by our creator—even made in His very image (Genesis 1:27). The fact that we have a “wicked heart” is a statement about the moral choices we are inclined to make. Anyone who is a parent can look at a child and agree that they are extraordinarily valuable and they make bad choices. It’s the same with every human. This isn’t a matter for “spiritual whiplash” once you understand the crucial that distinction between value and morality.

The Vicious Cycle

Furthermore, it’s likely that this conflation of value and morality led to the “vicious cycle” she felt of self-hatred, shame, guilt, and repentance. Knowing that you are inclined toward sin should not cause you to hate yourself. The Bible is clear on our value as image bearers. God so loved His creation that He gave His one and only Son to die for us. We should value ourselves as highly as God values us.

But God is also holy and just. When we sin—transgress a moral law—we rightly feel guilty because we are guilty. If someone intentionally kills an innocent human being, most people would say that person should feel guilty because they did something that is objectively wrong; guilt is not a bad thing, it’s a healthy thing that signifies a functioning conscience. It draws us to repentance, both to the person(s) wronged and toward God.

Therefore, sin, guilt, and repentance are not a vicious cycle. Sin is an ongoing reality in a fallen world, guilt is an appropriate response when we’ve done something wrong (against God’s standards), and repentance leads us back to God. As Christians, we should then accept that Jesus has forgiven us. Self-hatred is not a biblical part of that equation.

“I was taught Romans 8:38-39 and warned of the perils of backsliding all in the same sermon. The thought of somehow committing the unforgivable sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) haunted my mind.”

Beware of Backsliding

Romans 8:38-39 is talking about how nothing can separate us from the love of God in Jesus. In context, Paul is saying that no one can bring a charge against God’s chosen people because it is God who justifies; no matter what happens on Earth, we are “more than conquerors” because nothing can separate us from the Lord. This is a statement about what’s true for those who are saved. While Christians have different views on the assurance of salvation, even for those who believe you can lose your salvation, this is not a contradiction with Romans 8:38-39. If you could “backslide” to a point where you have lost salvation, those verses would simply no longer apply to the unsaved person. It’s a different audience.

“Though I believed [in Christ] with every fiber of my being, I suffered from anxiety, self-loathing and a crippling fear of death. I longed to forge genuine connections with my church family but when I tried to open up about my fears and confusion, I was told I just needed to have more faith. When I had theological questions that made other leaders uncomfortable, I was dismissed if not outright ostracized.”

Just have more Faith!?

If it’s true that Myndee raised her fears and confusions with her church family and was met by dismissal, it’s incredibly sad. Certainly, I’ve seen Christians tell people who have questions to just have more faith, and that’s a terrible response. Biblical faith is confident trust based on who God is. If someone doesn’t understand why there’s good reason to be confident in the existence or identity of God, telling them to just trust more without giving them reason for a confident foundation from which to trust is not the solution.

I only say “if it’s true” because I do think it’s become a bit of a script for many who deconvert to say that no one would or could answer their questions. Did they ask one person? Five? Anyone outside their own church? Read books? There’s no way to know for any individual, but if you’re genuinely seeking truth, you should be seeking answers in many places. There are numerous resources available.

“My hunger and thirst for righteousness went unquenched. Those who claimed to be the hands and feet of Jesus showed me how they weaponized the Bible for their own gain.”

Weaponized Bible

It’s impossible to know what she has in mind about weaponizing the Bible, but today people often claim the Bible is being weaponized any time a Christian shares truth people don’t like. For example, if you say that God made two genders (and you can’t change those genders), you will be accused of “weaponizing the Bible.” If the Bible is truly God’s Word, that’s not using it as a weapon. It’s sharing truth. (Of course, truth should be shared in a gracious way.)

However, it’s possible Myndee grew up in a church that truly did weaponize the Bible in an abusive sense. If that’s the case, again, it’s awful. However, we have to recognize that we can’t blame God when people misuse His Word. We must seek to know if the Bible is true regardless of those abuses.

“My traumas and mental health issues were blamed on the devil, and I was made to feel as though I wasn’t Christian enough because of my struggles that, ironically, stemmed mostly from Christian teachings.”

Mishandling Mental Health

From a biblical perspective, mental health challenges can be part of both a spiritual and physical battle. There’s no way to diagnose this particular situation without knowing the specifics (and even if you knew some specifics, no one could definitively claim that x part is spiritual and y part is physical). But if her struggles were truly stemming from her response to “Christian teachings,” there are a couple of points that should be made.

First, how we feel in response to reality doesn’t determine what is reality. If we feel traumatized by the idea of hell, for example, that has no bearing on whether hell is real. So claiming trauma from biblical teachings is not inherently a statement about whether those teachings are true. Christians shouldn’t feel traumatized by a theologically accurate understanding of God’s judgment (there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus—Romans 8:1), but however a person does feel does not determine what’s true.

Second, sometimes people may feel the kind of trauma she’s talking about in response to a misunderstanding of biblical truth. If she felt self-hatred (as she mentioned previously) because she didn’t have a theologically accurate understanding of the value-morality distinction, that’s not the fault of what the Bible teaches. It’s a tragic misunderstanding on her own part that was never clarified by further study or other Christians.

“I was doing my best to maintain a good, close, loving relationship with the god of the Christian Bible. I wanted nothing more than that. To abandon myself. To die so he might live in me. What I was actually doing was denying my own compassion, my own intuition, which was objectively more righteous than a God who murders entire civilizations (the children too) and sends his own creation to hell for what can only be described as a design flaw. One the designer, the creator, is ultimately responsible for.”

More Righteous than God!?

This is quite the statement. She claims that her own compassion and intuition (moral intuition, presumably) are more righteous than that of the biblical God. She even states that this is objectively so! Yet where does she get the objective basis for her morality if God doesn’t exist? If there is no God, the universe is the product of blind, purposeless chance, and there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Without a higher-than-human moral authority and lawgiver, there is no objective moral law. The compassion she praises herself for is meaningless in such a world—it would simply be a function of evolutionary survival mechanisms, not of an actual moral nature (and therefore would not be praiseworthy!).

The same goes for the moral intuition she claims. If God doesn’t exist, that intuition is an evolutionary delusion brought upon the human species by time and chance. There is no objective morality to have moral intuitions about if there is no God. She claims her morality is objectively superior, but she has no objective standard if God doesn’t exist. And if a god does exist but hasn’t revealed himself, she still can’t claim to have knowledge of what objective standards this hypothetical god put in place—he didn’t reveal anything!

She then says that God “murders” entire civilizations. First, this isn’t morally wrong (as she clearly assumes) if there is no moral law giver. Second, she misses the distinction between murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life) and killing (any taking of life). Most people recognize that killing in self-defense is not considered murder. Some would say that killing in the context of a just war isn’t either. And some would say neither is the death penalty.

Not all killing is murder. For God to murder people would mean He was unjustified in taking their lives. When God commands the killing of people in the Bible, however, it’s clearly because of judgment that He, as the all-knowing and perfectly just God of the universe, had the knowledge, nature, and right to make.

Free Will, a Design Flaw?

She then goes on to again confuse creation with our ability to make moral choices. Free will is a feature, not a bug, in God’s design of the human being. If we didn’t have the ability to make morally significant choices, we would be robots incapable of being in relationship with Him, which was His purpose in our creation. If we use our free will to reject God and His offer of forgiveness for sin, we will be subject to judgment because He is a holy and just God. Just as it’s not loving to let criminals go free in earthly justice systems, it’s not loving to let moral law breakers (every human) to go free in the “cosmic” justice system. But in God’s love, He paid the penalty for us. We simply have to accept His gift of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross.

“Then one day, I could deny and ignore it no longer. The Christian god delights in violence. The Christian church caused me more harm than good.”

If you read the Old Testament, God does not delight in violence. He is a patient God who seeks the heart and repentance of His people.

Also, harm and good are two terms that require an objective basis for meaningful definition. A person’s subjective feelings of what is harmful or helpful, good or bad, and right or wrong do not define what is objectively true.

“In getting away from it, I found the peace that passes all understanding. I am now immersed with love, with grace, with joy. I have found freedom in what others call “witchcraft”. I don’t worship the moon or my crystals. My Tarot cards are not a god to me. I respectfully utilize these things to help me connect to myself and to this beautiful world I get to be a part of and share with my fellow humans. I don’t care if Tarot or Reiki or Buddhism or Christianity is real. I care if it is helpful.”

Utility over Truth

This says everything. As I have pointed out multiple times here, nothing she has said so far has had anything to do with what is true or real. A skeptical reader might say that “of course” she had already decided that Christianity is false, and she’s just telling us more about her journey—that it goes without saying that truth mattered. But that’s simply not the case for many people today, and she says it explicitly here: “I don’t care…if Christianity is real.” The motto of so many people who have deconstructed or deconverted is what they subjectively find helpful. The nature of truth is rarely considered.

If you’re reading this and don’t know what you believe, please consider that what you find helpful may or may not be true, and believing what is false but subjectively helpful in your own estimation can have serious consequences for your life now and for eternity. I might find it helpful to my peace of mind if someone came and told me that I will never have a car accident, so I can drive however I want. But if that’s not true, it doesn’t matter how much peace and joy the falsity provided. I’ll die in a car accident if I’m not driving with care.

What’s real matters.

About that Witchcraft . . .

Additionally, if the “witchcraft” she does has an actual consequence in the world because she is tapping into the demonic, she should recognize that this, indeed, is real. And if witchcraft is real, that means the supernatural is real. And if the supernatural is real, that should point her to the existence of God and ultimately back to the Bible, which explains exactly who is behind the witchcraft (Satan) and the role he plays in reality.

On the other hand, if the “witchcraft” does nothing, there’s no reason to do it at all. But I’m guessing she finds it appealing because witchcraft gives a person methods for attempting to exhibit control over the universe. If she struggled with feeling a lack of control under the sovereignty of a God she believed to be murderous and horrible, it would make sense she would try to regain control in her next belief system. But again, if it actually does something, that should point her back to a supernatural worldview in which God exists.

“I don’t care what your doctrine is, I care what kind of impact you make on the world around you. I care more about your mental and emotional health than whether or not you believe the ‘right’ thing.”

Truth-Neutral Living

Well, you might not care about what people believe, but again, this has no bearing on what’s true about the world. If there’s a God who created this incredible universe and every human being, then He is the only one with the rightful authority to say what matters and what doesn’t. The Bible is very clear from beginning to end that what people believe about God matters. There are right and wrong beliefs, and they have significant consequences. And when people do live according to right beliefs about who God is, who we are, what our relationship is, what’s required of us, and more, that flows into a true peace that surpasses all understanding.

This doesn’t mean a Christian won’t have any mental and emotional struggles, however. Counseling and sometimes medication are important for dealing with the kinds of challenges we encounter in this world. That’s a different question than whether or not doctrine matters.

“If being on the inside of Christianity helps you be a better, more whole human, I want that for you. I want whatever brings peace to your soul. Despite life’s turmoil, my soul is more at peace and I am a better human, both internally and externally, outside of Christianity.”

You do You

Again, it doesn’t matter what you want for someone. See answer above—the same logic applies. It’s what God wants for us. It’s how God defines what is better or worse. It’s who God thinks we are when we are most wholly human.

You might use your own definition of “better” to conclude you are a better human outside of Christianity, but if God disagrees, you’re in an infinitely worse place.

“Outside of Christianity, there is no more “us vs. them” or “wheat vs. chaff” for I see that we are all one under this universe. We are all made of stardust, here for a short time and instead of wasting my life dying to myself to try to please an angry, jealous god whose wrath could not be appeased outside the brutal murder of his own son, I spend my time building genuine connections and embodying love.”

If there is no God, she’s right that we’re made of material stuff alone, with no inherent value, and with no objective meaning of life. But if that’s truly the picture of the world we live in, she has no objective basis for claiming God is morally wrong, her “genuine connections” are with other groups of stardust with no actual value, and the love she is “embodying” is just a bunch of chemical reactions. Those are consistent truths with the worldview that we’re all just stardust and nothing more.

But it’s important to note that she simultaneously misconstrues the claims of Christianity here. Again, murder is the unjustified taking of an innocent human life. If you understand Christian doctrine, you know that the Trinity is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—three persons, one nature. Jesus is God. He laid down His own life (John 10:17-18). Out of His love for us, He took the punishment for sin and offered us eternal life. Her description here is a complete mischaracterization and misunderstanding of this beautiful truth from our all-loving and perfectly just God.

“If you are worried about my eternal state, don’t be. If the god of the Bible is the loving god Christians claim he is, then [He] will meet me where I am. He will allow me to walk the path that helps me be a better human and live a life without anxiety and self-loathing. That god will understand my plight and accept my inability to accept a doctrine that has caused me irreparable harm. And if you think the god you believe in will say to me ‘depart from me, I never knew you’ when my time on earth is through, that’s not a god I’d want to spend eternity with anyway.”

It’s quite presumptuous to assume that the God of the universe will “meet you where you are,” when by that you mean He’ll accept whatever decisions you make as right for you. If He has already given us a Bible to tell us what we need to know so that we can meet Him where He requires, that’s the standard to which we’ll be held. The Bible explicitly and repeatedly tells us not to be anxious (e.g., Matthew 6:27). And as I already explained, we aren’t to be self-loathing.

It’s truly sad that the theological misunderstandings she has about God have led her to hate Him so much that even if He were real and the Bible were true, she claims she wouldn’t want to be with Him anyway. Theology matters. It’s the difference between someone longing to be with the God who loves them and someone longing to reject the God whom they hate based on an errant understanding of His Word.

All of this begs the question of what is actually true. Unfortunately, the most viral social media posts are rarely about seeking truth. They’re about people’s experiences and emotional responses to those experiences. Experiences and responses aren’t unimportant; they’re part of life. But they don’t determine what’s true. That’s why it’s so important for Christians to have an understanding of apologetics (the case for and the defense of the truth of Christianity). In a world that no longer even asks what’s true, we have to be able to show that’s still the pertinent question…and then demonstrate the Bible is truly God’s Word.

Where Did Guilt Come From?

2. Does God Exist?, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

As a prosecutor for many decades, I often found myself reflecting on the impact that feelings of guilt have, even upon criminals with lengthy records. Why was it that the guilty wanted to talk about their crime, even after being advised of their rights? Why would those who had “gotten away” nonetheless seek to escape their feelings through alcohol or drugs? Apart from true sociopaths, it seemed to me that people cannot simply cast-off feelings of guilt by force of will. The feelings persist and they demand a reckoning. That voice of conscience – that voice that so many of us try so hard to quiet– simply refuses to cooperate.

Where Guilt Comes From

Put simply, feelings of guilt arise when a person senses the disconnect between what they have done, or are planning to do, and what they realize they “ought” to do. But why should this be so? Why should we feel conflicted about the behavior we are consciously choosing? For example, when I am hungry, my instinct is to eat to satisfy the hunger. But when I eat too much, and do so repeatedly, I begin to realize I am becoming a glutton. Despite satisfying my urge, I realize that I should not act that way. Similarly, I may elect to act in a way that hurts someone else to advance my own interests. But later, I begin to feel qualms and regret my behavior.

Why is it Universal?

What worldview, I wondered, best explains this near-universal human experience?

To the secularist, such feelings are the product of long-term social evolution. Initially, this explanation made sense to me. After all, why wouldn’t the person with a “pro-social” approach add to their group’s potential for survival? And wouldn’t feelings of guilt for wrongdoing tend to produce pro-social behavior? But the more I thought about this, the more I realized that it lacked true explanatory value.

If we did in fact evolve from primitive protohumans, how did these first thinking humans begin to feel guilt? After all, no one ever enjoys feeling guilty, and such feelings definitely tend to constrain – not expand – behavior choices. They would cause a person to think twice before doing something that might be in their individual interest. Stealing from one’s neighbor, for example, or killing one’s rival to obtain his belongings, would benefit an individual assuming they felt they could accomplish it. Giving a stranger food or shelter, by contrast, would put someone at a disadvantage if resources are scarce. It makes much more sense that any potential benefit in group thinking would be outweighed by the limitations on guilt-inducing behaviors. Imagine the lion chasing its prey but then feeling “guilty” and stopping short of his goal. How long would he survive? Probably not long enough to pass his genes on to the next generation.

It’s hard to imagine how pro-social thinking would have arisen in the harsh and competitive environment of the first humans. If we are just evolved but now intelligent primates, why would we ever depart from pursuing our own, individual short-term best interest? Raiding and stealing from others makes a lot more sense than trying to make peace with someone who is bent on taking what you have. Why would we limit our possible choices by deciding that we “ought” to do something that helps others but only provides us a possible, longer-term benefit? And if we chose to do so, would this not be the result of an intelligent selection? Feelings of guilt would play no useful role here. Indeed, being burdened by guilt would detract from survivability and therefore be rooted out over time. Moreover, if pro-social thinking is an intellectual exercise, why would feelings come into play at all? Why not simply decide sometimes to act one way depending on the circumstances, without ever experiencing feelings about our choices? What possible advantage would such an approach confer?

What does Altruism Prove?

No, pro-social or altruistic thinking only makes sense in a person who already has in mind the view that building a stronger community, or helping others, is itself a good to pursue. An individual possessing this capacity would decide to forego killing his rival in search of something greater in the more remote future. He would realize this is something he “ought” to do even if his hunger or greed were impelling him to a different decision.

Why would we have such a capacity built into us? The secularist has no answer, but the Christian does. The capacity for guilt did not evolve. It was built into our minds in the same way acquisition of language and understanding the concept of “fair play” were, put there by an intelligent Creator who has a moral law that he desires us to obey. And so, when we stray from that law, there are feelings of dissonance and regret that emerge from that mental “subroutine” leading us back to the “good.” Morality, and the resulting feelings of guilt, are a message to us from outside, not an evolved internal trait.

Now it is true that we do not all experience guilt in the same way. Different cultures, and different groups within a single culture, may feel guilty about different things. But many common features are evident. No one feels guilt after doing good, or angst after following their conscience. No one feels pleased when they betray a friend. And of course, consciences can be seared by poor upbringing which distorts what “good” and “evil” are in the first place. Our minds naturally follow a selection process as to what we “ought” to do, even if what informs that process has been distorted.

Written On our Hearts

Secularists see guilt as something in need of fixing. They look to modern science – psychology or pharmacology or both – to help people finally rid themselves of this vestige of what they view as our primitive and superstitious past. But it is to no avail. Feelings of guilt flow from the moral law “written on our hearts,” guardrails meant to guide us on to the right path, and no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape them.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated; downloadable pdf, PowerPoint) by Frank Turek

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

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

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

February 19, 2024/by Ty Unknown

Only God is Above the Law

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

“No one is above the law.” So the popular saying goes, and no truer thing was ever said in a mere six words. This thought, and our Western system of justice which sprang from it, stands as a testament, and a tribute, to the philosophy that gives humanity its best chance for self-government and ordered liberty.

The philosophy that found its expression in this view was itself largely shaped by a Christian worldview, one in which our individual rights, and our equality under law, were grounded in a transcendent being who made us for a purpose. Our Founders certainly understood this when they declared their right to independence from Great Britain and affirmed that “all men are created equal.” In their view, this equality finds its roots in the “Creator,” who endows each person with “certain unalienable rights.” As the familiar phrase sets forth, among these rights are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Many secularists today have misapplied this thought, mistakenly asserting that this concept also applies to God. They fail – or refuse – to see the distinction between the Creator and the created, as they put God “on trial” for everything from genocide, “ethnic cleansing” and murder in Old Testament times to every instance of suffering in the modern world that God could, but fails, to prevent.

A moment’s reflection should make plain that God need not answer to us – he, indeed, is the one thing “above the law” for he is the law. He is no more subject to it, or answerable to us, than the computer programmer is to the rules he writes into a computer simulation. While God’s apparent indifference to the human condition may cause us to speculate about his nature, or his will, none of our opinions or our accusations will ever “make out a case against him.” This is simply nonsensical when one realizes what the concept of God entails.

Most people understand this intuitively. Take the prevailing view of abortion in many circles today: a majority of Americans apparently still support the notion that a mother has the right to end the life of the baby growing within her. Christianity holds, to the contrary, that it is always wrong to take innocent human life. Since the developing child is “innocent” and since he or she is “human life,” that should end the discussion. The reason it does not is that many people recognize that the baby’s life is different – the baby lacks self-awareness or developed intelligence and the baby is “dependent” upon his mother’s body for continued life. These factors, skillfully manipulated through the rhetoric of “choice,” lead many people – who refuse to think through what in fact is at play – into serious error.

Think of it this way: human beings, regardless of their age, level of intelligence, or degree of dependence on others are in a horizontal relationship with each other. We are all the same kind of creature. While we each possess distinct and different talents, and while opportunities for development differ, we are equal in the nature of our being. Though many wish to view the mother as “superior” to the child, in reality she is not. The mother of the child did not “create” the child she is bearing; the child was “begotten.” This may sound like mere semantics, but it is not. For it is the power to “create” from nothing – as God did in the Big Bang event – that gives the right to dictate to those that were created. Men and women, when they procreate, are but a link in the chain of life that God set into motion tens of thousands of years ago. They take part in the process; they are not the source of it.

If science ever leads to the creation of fully functional AI robots, human beings will be the “creators” and will have the right to do with those robots what they will. Having created them from raw materials, whatever rights they are eventually given will be dependent entirely on the will, and wishes, of those who created them.

As the Bible teaches, in God we live and move and have our being. This is literally true: the sum total of what we are is grounded in God’s creative power. If he were to stop thinking of us for even a moment, we would cease to exist. Our relationship to him is not one of equals, as we are entirely dependent upon him for our continued existence.

I’d say that gives God the power to define morality. It places him above, and as the source of, our earthly law. As created beings, we should spend less time judging God and more time listening to what he expects of us.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated; downloadable pdf, PowerPoint) by Frank Turek
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 27, 2023/by Guest

The Surprising Way Tinkerbell Shows the Flaw in the Transgender Identity Crisis

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

I know what you might be thinking. “Tinkerbell, Melissa? Seriously?” But stay with me here. The pre-woke movie era had some good stuff in it that’s surprisingly relevant and counter-cultural by 2023 standards.

Tinkerbell (2008)

So first, here is a brief movie synopsis for those who may not have seen the movie: The first Tinkerbell movie was made in 2008. The story starts with Tinkerbell as a new fairy. She was a fairy who was born a certain way, as what’s called a tinker fairy, where she “tinkers” with things to build them. But she hates it. The main setting is in a magical place in Neverland called Pixie Hollow where there are other “talents” that other fairies have, such as water, animal, light, wind, or flower fairies. She struggles with who she is as a tinker fairy and who she wants to be, especially after finding out that tinker fairies don’t get to go to the Mainland for spring. She wants to be anything but a tinker fairy. She refused to accept the truth that this was actually who she was and instead stubbornly embraced her truth.

The entire movie is about her trying to be every other fairy type, anything other than who she was born to be. Her supportive friends knew she was a tinker and tried to tell her many times that this was who she was. Good for them. At the end of the movie, she finally accepts that she shouldn’t deny her true identity by trying to be something she’s not. She ends up happily embracing being a tinker fairy.

The Truth About Tinkerbell

I’m sure you already know what I’m getting at. The parallel to today’s identity crisis are clear, and quite the opposite message from this movie: you can’t change the truth to your truth.

Let me say this. First, I feel for those who struggle with their identity. There’s a deep and intense struggle to change who we are to be accepted by others or seen how we want to be seen. But there’s freedom in loving how God made you. And I mean how he actually made you. What I mean by that is some people might say, “But God made me with this identity! I didn’t choose to be a man in a woman’s body, or this race, or even this species!” I want to lovingly counter this idea with these questions:

Says who?

Where did you get that idea from?

By what standard are you measuring that this is God’s will for your life and how He made you?

If God has revealed Himself, He did so in the person of Jesus. I didn’t make this claim. Jesus did. If Jesus is who He says He is, then how would we find out information about Him? Here’s the answer: The Bible. People that walked and talked with Jesus and witnessed His life, resurrection, and miracles recorded them, then died horrendous deaths, never denying any of it was false. In other words, if Jesus is everything He says He is, I trust the Book that tells me who He is and what He taught, and what He commanded His disciples to do and teach.

Identity in Christ

And what He says about how you are made matters when it comes to this topic: you were born one way, but He says to be born another way. He says to be born again.

“Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.’” John 3:3 (NIV)

He wants you to find your identity in Him, not yourself. He wants you to love who He is and how He made you, not make a God in your own image that likes what you like and loves what you love. Jesus came for you too and says that He is the bread of life. What He’s saying is that this world will not satisfy, and looking within isn’t sustainable. He’s the standard for what’s good, true, and fulfilling.

A Lesson from American Idol

On a harder-to-accept level, people living “their truth” can sometimes look forced and awkward. Like someone trying to be something we all know they aren’t. It reminds me of one of those American Idol auditions where someone goes in thinking they’re a fantastic singer because everyone around them was telling them they were a great singer. But they open their mouth, and it’s total cringe. What’s stunning is their denying the fact that they are an objectively bad singer. Perhaps the people around them were afraid to tell the truth because the person was too sensitive or emotionally fragile to handle tough feedback. Everyone knew they weren’t a star. But everyone went along with it, perhaps out of fear. I see the same principle when it comes to today’s identity crisis.

Now isn’t it interesting, and rather ironic, that we live in a world that says self-love is the battle cry of the day but then the same instigators want you to deny everything about who you are for a fleeting feeling that changes? There’s wisdom in accepting yourself for who you are, not denying it to fill a void.

5 Fatal Flaws in Transgender Ideology

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Many people who support transgender surgery and cross-sex hormones may be well-intentioned, but the transgender ideology behind those intentions is fraught with fatal flaws. Here are just five of many. Contrary to transgender ideology:

1. The Design of the Body Proves There are Only Two Genders

Transgender advocates insist there are multiple genders. However, the design of the human body shows there are only two genders. Humans can either produce sperm or eggs. There is no third reproductive output in humans or mammals. Of course, there are humans who cannot produce either due to biological deficiencies, but that is an incapacity, not a thirdcapacity to produce something else. Thus, the claim that there are more than two genders can only be entertained if one detaches the concept of gender from biological sex.

However, insisting that gender is completely different from someone’s biological sex doesn’t work either. If gender and biology were completely different things — if there’s no relationship between the two — then why would anyone advocate for cross-sex hormones or sex change operations? Which leads us to flaw two.

2. Transgenderism Must Presuppose Fixed Genders

While transgender advocates deny that there are only two genders, they must unwittingly presuppose two genders for transgenderism to be possible. Why? Because if I’m a biological man but think I’m a woman, I must have some idea of what a man and woman are to recognize my problem. I must also know what a man and woman are to make the so-called “transition.” If genders are completely fluid with no fixed reference points, there would be no way to recognize the mismatch between my biology and psychology and no destination for my transition. In other words, “gender dysphoria” could not exist without two known, fixed genders.

The denial of fixed genders has sparked a bit of a civil war among some identifying as LGBTQ, because if the T’s get their way, the L’s, G’s, and B’s don’t exist (search for #LGBminustheT). How can one be lesbian, gay, or bisexual if there are no fixed genders? Each of those identities rely on fixed genders. Likewise, some feminists are unhappy because, without fixed genders, there are no women and therefore no women’s rights.

This is one reason why Matt Walsh’s documentary, “What is a Woman?,” has so many transgender advocates and Leftwing academics stumped by the question, “What is a woman?” They are caught in a dilemma. If they say a woman is a biological female, then transgender ideology is false. If they refuse to define a woman, transgenderism is not possible. Who is transitioning to what? And what happened to women’s rights?

3. You Can Change Your Mind But Not Your Biology

When biology and psychology are mismatched, why do we think changing the body instead of changing the mind is the way to fix the problem? We don’t do this for other conditions.

When anorexics falsely think they are overweight, we don’t say, “You’re right. Let me get you some liposuction.” For people who honestly believe they should have healthy limbs cut off (a condition known as “trans-abled”), we don’t say, “You’re right. If you think you should not have a right arm, we will cut if off for you.” When your daughter insists she’s a mermaid, you don’t take her off the coast and drop her in the ocean. So, why do we think we should cut off healthy sex organs instead of helping people change their minds?

While you can change your mind, it is literally impossible to change your biology. You can mutilate your body, but you cannot change the DNA of your 100 trillion cells or the many thousands of biological differences between men and women.

Any attempt to “transition” between the sexes implicitly admits these differences and affirms the binary nature of gender. Otherwise, there would be no use for hormones or puberty blockers. In fact, if there were no differences in the physical and biological designs of men and women, transgenderism would not only be impossible but unnecessary. If men and women were the same, there would be no need or desire to transition. So instead of me thinking I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body, why not think I’m a man with a woman’s mind? That way I can actually fix my problem with good mental health care.

4. Sex Is Not Assigned At Birth

For transgender ideology to succeed, people must come to believe that gender is arbitrary and is “assigned” at birth. But everyone knows that gender is not “assigned” at birth — it is discovered at birth (or sometimes before). It’s not like people vote at gender-reveal parties, or that doctors arbitrarily decide the sex of a newborn. No, they discover and state the baby’s sex because there is no ambiguity.

In the extremely rare cases where genitals are ambiguous (intersex), tests are done and choices are made to correct the problem. Most patients end up male or female rather than assuming a non-binary status. This is not the same as transgenderism where people with fully formed and healthy sexual organs attempt to transition to the opposite sex. Intersex is a biological condition; gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. The existence of intersex conditions does nothing to support the claim that sex is “assigned” at birth. Birth defects do not disprove the norm. In fact, they would be impossible to identify without the norm.

We live in a fallen world. All of us are born with deficiencies and defects. That doesn’t mean we are less human or less worthy of respect. But that also doesn’t mean we should mandate that everyone else live according to such deficiencies or defects. When someone is born deaf, we don’t tell the rest of the world they can never speak or listen to music because it might offend the deaf. Yet that is precisely what transgender activists and the rest of the woke world are trying to impose on our entire society.

5. There is No Basis for Transgender Rights

We seem to be inventing new “rights” in America every 10 minutes. But where do rights come from? They can’t come from the government because a right is something you have regardless of what anyone else says about it (including your government). Rights can only come from God (“our Creator” as the Declaration of Independence puts it). Without God, every moral issue is reduced to a matter of opinion.

What evidence do we have that God wants anyone to amputate perfectly healthy sex organs? There is none from natural law, the Bible, or any other supposed revelation that claims to come from God.

People can demand that their government legislate or declare certain behaviors as “rights,” but that doesn’t make them rights any more than a government can legislate that a biological man is a woman. That doesn’t make him a woman. Instead of trying to change reality to fit our thoughts, we should be trying to change our thoughts to fit reality. As I document in the new third edition of Correct Not Politically Correct (from which this column is adapted), there are several more fatal flaws in transgender ideology, including the evidence showing that transitioning doesn’t fix the underlying problem. But that’s for the next column.

Compromise #1: Attending an LGBT wedding overlooks God’s identity of male and female

Compromise #2: Attending an LGBT wedding undermines God’s definition of marriage between a man and a woman

Compromise #3: Attending an LGBT wedding actually weakens a Christian’s witness

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Don’t just label things “Woke” without being able to explain why.

Where did the word Woke come from?

What does Woke mean now?

What is CRT?

How does woke show up in our daily lives?

A Word of Warning

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Everyone Has An Equal Right to Life . . . Or Not

From Conception Onward

The Case for Life Argument

Answering Objections

If You’re Pro-Life, You Need This Book

References:

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Coopting Christian Values

Guideposts to the Gospel

What is a post-Christian culture?

How Post-Christian Culture Differs

Christianity’s Role in a Post-Christian Culture?

Not True, but Useful

Competing Gospels

Revising Christ

What are we to do?

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

They’re Coming for Your Children…

For the Crime of Christianity…

How Will the Supreme Court Rule?

KGB/Gestapo Tactics

We Didn’t Get Here Overnight

Our Greatest Mission Field

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Tinkerbell (2008)

The Truth About Tinkerbell

Identity in Christ

A Lesson from American Idol

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

1. The Design of the Body Proves There are Only Two Genders

2. Transgenderism Must Presuppose Fixed Genders

3. You Can Change Your Mind But Not Your Biology

4. Sex Is Not Assigned At Birth

5. There is No Basis for Transgender Rights

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Where did the word Woke come from?**

**What does Woke mean now?**

**How does woke show up in our daily lives?**