The Scandal of Elite Evangelical Compromise

A blogger I read regularly alerted me to Megan Basham’s new book Shepherds for Sale, subtitled How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda. It was released [at the] end of July. I was intrigued by the book because it claimed to be exposing compromise infecting many evangelical elites, especially among Southern Baptists. As it is, she is a Southern Baptist, and for over a decade I had moved in that world both at the more liberal Baylor University (the “largest Baptist university in the world”) and then at two of the main Southern Baptist seminaries (in Louisville and in Ft. Worth).

Baylor president Robert Sloan had hired me in 1999 to found and run an intelligent design think tank (the Michael Polanyi Center). The backlash from Baylor faculty was intense, and I was left for the five years on my contract to write and do research, but essentially as persona non grata, without even the option to teach (I was too controversial for any department to risk having me teach their courses). The biology department even had on its homepage a statement repudiating intelligent design and commending Darwinian evolutionary theory. If Basham’s book had been written about evangelicalism at Baylor, it would not be the “instant” New York Times bestseller it is now. Moderate Baptists, such as at Baylor, have a long history of accommodation with the prevailing spirit of the age.

In 2005 my contract with Baylor came to an end. My struggles at Baylor had gotten me some sympathy from conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention, which had gained control of the seminaries. And so, in the fall of 2005, I started teaching at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, and then subsequently at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. Though for a time I was a “golden boy,” featured in the Baptist Press and with my likeness in seminary ads, I lasted only seven years at these seminaries. In the end, it wasn’t a good fit.

The final straw for me was a meeting in which the president, provost, and dean called me into the president’s office because I questioned historical aspects of Noah’s flood, questions I had raised in a book on theodicy (The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World). I had never hidden that I was not a young-earth creationist. In fact, I had made my old-earth position on creation clear in the job application process. But when I was called in for that meeting, the president informed me that my job was on the line (the historicity of Noah’s flood being a point of orthodoxy at the seminary even if the age of the earth was not). I was able to finesse things enough to keep my job (you can find the details in an interview I gave), but it left a bad taste in my mouth, and I knew it was time to move on.

I give this background not to stir up bad sentiments, whether in myself or the reader, but to indicate that the world that Megan Basham is writing about is one I knew intimately. As a non-Baptist outsider, I was especially alert to the power politics, the scolding and shaming, and the thirst for respectability about which she writes. That is her world as well. It is the one she mainly focuses on. In a sense, her book makes an a fortiori argument: if she can demonstrate woke compromise in the Southern Baptist Convention, the only major Protestant denomination that ever took itself out of the liberal death spiral that had compromised all the other mainline Protestant denominations, then her case is made for evangelicalism generally.

A word about terminology. Basham ostensibly focuses her attention on American evangelicalism as a whole rather than the specifically Southern Baptist form of it. American evangelicalism is a broad movement within Protestant Christianity characterized by a focus on the authority of Scripture, the importance of evangelism (i.e., sharing the Gospel), personal conversion, and a belief in the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In that sense, I am and remain an evangelical. Yet the term applies especially to any believing Southern Baptist, as can be confirmed by examining the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, to which Southern Baptists are expected to subscribe.

As a writer for the Daily Wire, Basham is not in the habit of mincing words. I found her tone a bit strident (though not overly). And yet, most of what she wrote rang true. I knew many of the personalities she described, whether directly or through mutual colleagues. Of the people I knew that she singled out for rebuke, I was not surprised about the charges she made. And of those whom she singled out as holding firm against woke encroachments, again they were people I would have expected to hold firm. There were a handful exceptions where Basham assigned someone to the class of compromiser where I thought she was likely being too harsh.

Basham is a journalist, and it’s clear that she did extensive research to write her book, reviewing many articles, posts, and videos as well as conducting numerous interviews. Her focus was on the hot-button cultural issues that animate our society’s more extreme progressives. With regard to climate change, illegal immigration, abortion, Covid-19 response, critical race theory, #MeToo, and LGBTQ, she details evangelical elites veering into a secular liberal agenda as they try to shift the thinking of the evangelical masses toward such an agenda or else keep them in the dark about the compromises they themselves are making.

You can read the book for yourself to determine whether she makes a compelling case for complicity and compromise among elite evangelicals. Interestingly, as I was looking on the web for reaction to her book, I punched into Google “Megan Basham Shepherds for Sale,” and the first item that came up was a 10,000-word response by former SBC president JD Greear (published three days ago, August 12).

Greear came in for extensive criticism in the book. Even though he took exception to Basham’s charges and replied to them in detail, he was respectful throughout and he did graciously underscore that there was validity to her efforts to hold church leaders like himself to account:

One of the things I appreciated about Basham’s book is that she pointed out the cultural pressure to appeal to elite progressives. That pressure exists in an educated, cosmopolitan place like RDU [where Greear’s Summit Church is located]. Nearly 70 percent of our community votes Democratic, and these are the people God has called us to reach. Since I am known as a political conservative, I do sometimes go to lengths to criticize my own political tribe because I don’t want there to be any encumbrances to the gospel. I need to heed the warning she offers and stand squarely on Scripture, saying exactly what it says, regardless of who it offends. That said, it is simply untrue that I don’t publicly criticize the Democratic party or critique the sins of the left. I’ve preached repeatedly on the sin of abortion, the sinfulness of homosexuality, and the destructiveness of gender confusion. Even just this year, I read from the Democratic platform in church and called it evil. The people of The Summit Church, who hear me week by week, know where I stand.

[Basham has posted a detailed reply to Greear at Clear Truth Media]

And that brings me to the point of this Substack post. As already noted, nothing that Basham described about evangelical elites succumbing to the temptations of power, prestige, money, and sex surprised me. And there’s a straightforward reason for my lack of surprise. Evangelicals, precisely because of their evangelical beliefs, occupy a second tier in our society, the first tier being occupied by the secular liberal elites that control the universities, the media, the levers of political power, and prime intellectual real estate such as the New York Times. It is a natural as well as potent temptation for the second tier to want recognition from the first tier.

The one surprise in my reading of Basham’s book was the pains to which the first tier has gone to seduce the second tier to serve its political ends. Evangelicals, for all their incongruence with elite secular high culture, constitute a political bloc that politicians must enlist to win elections and that progressive influencers consequently must subvert if their secular liberal agenda is to succeed. To have evangelicals publicly seen as a constant disrupter of their best laid plans would not wash. As with all ideologies that seek complete domination, woke progressivism finds it unacceptable to have a group, even a fringe group, serve as a witness against their goals and aspirations. And so, the biggest surprise for me in reading Shepherds for Sale was the extent to which explicitly non-Christian secular groups, especially philanthropies, target evangelicals, especially their elite leadership, with funds, training, and attention to get them to veer from the straight and narrow.

The Bible talks about bribes and how they subvert truth and justice. Yet the Hebrew word שַׁחַד (shachad) translated bribe also means gift, reward, or donation. That’s what philanthropic organizations are all about—giving gifts, rewards, and donations to advance their agendas. And as Basham rightly notes, the biggest philanthropic organization of all is the US government.

Not all philanthropic agendas need to be for bad ends. But all of them come with strings attached. They come with obligations to look here and not there, to wish for and achieve certain preferred outcomes, to serve a given cause rather than to let evidence and truth go where they will. Basham details how various secular liberal organizations have exploited the cultural inferiority of evangelicalism to move it away from its traditional positions on the hot-button issues of our age.

My point in this post is not to name evangelical elites who have compromised themselves or the secular philanthropies who have tempted them into compromise. You can get the details in Basham’s book. But here’s an example that Basham gives that’s emblematic of the temptations faced by elite evangelicals. It’s the case of an elite evangelical being invited to dinner at the Obama White House. I knew this individual 20 years ago early in his career. He has since had a meteoric rise in elite evangelical circles. In the introduction to a recent book that he wrote, he inserts a paragraph that seems out of place about his dinner at the Obama White House (confirming Basham’s account). No doubt, it must be personally gratifying to be invited to the White House. But ego aside, is that really something for an evangelical to be proud of given that the Obama presidency was so opposed to core evangelical beliefs and practices?

Let me put this point more starkly. The Scriptures teach repeatedly that we should guard against recognition, accolades, and advancement from those hostile to the faith and that in fact we are on much safer ground when those hostile to the faith persecute rather than praise us. This is not to say that we should purposely make ourselves so annoying or distasteful that we receive the reproach of unbelievers (as when Christians act as hypocrites). But it is to say that by quietly and consistently living out our faith, we will naturally attract opposition (consider the ongoing saga of the Denver baker Jack Phillips).

The New Testament makes this point so consistently, as illustrated in the following verses, that it is hard to dismiss it simply as proof texting:

  • Matthew 5:10–12
    “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
  • Matthew 10:22
    “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
  • Luke 6:22–23
    “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.”
  • John 15:18–20
    “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”
  • Acts 5:40–41
    “They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”
  • 2 Timothy 3:12
    “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
  • 1 Peter 2:20b–21
    “If you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

At the risk of overburdening the reader with still more Scripture verses, yet to leave no doubt about what the New Testament is teaching here, not only is opposition from unbelievers seen as something normal and to be expected (showing that Christians are doing something right) but support from unbelievers at the very least requires scrutiny and at worst can become a trap or pitfall:

  • Luke 6:26
    “Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”
  • John 5:44
    “How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”
  • John 12:42b–43
    “Because of the Pharisees, [many] would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human praise more than praise from God.”
  • Galatians 1:10
    “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
  • James 4:4
    “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”

So the prime lesson I take from Basham’s book, and one I would like readers of this post to take with them also, is that we do well not to sell our Christian birthright for a mess of liberal or progressive pottage. We should be better than that and our Christian faith demands better than that.

Northwestern University professor Gary Morson wrote a recent piece for Commentary on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the great Soviet dissident and Christian believer whose Gulag Archipelago more than any other book (it was actually three volumes) tore the veil off of Soviet oppression and totalitarianism in the 1970s. As Morson writes in “Solzhenitsyn Warned Us”:

For his part, Solzhenitsyn could hardly believe that Westerners would not want to hear all he had learned journeying through the depths of totalitarian hell. “Even in soporific Canada, which always lagged behind, a leading television commentator lectured me that I presumed to judge the experience of the world from the viewpoint of my limited Soviet and prison camp experience,” Solzhenitsyn recalled. “Indeed, how true! Life and death, imprisonment and hunger, the cultivation of the soul despite the captivity of the body: how very limited this is compared to the bright world of political parties, yesterday’s numbers on the stock exchange, amusements without end, and exotic foreign travel!”

The West “turned out to be not what we [dissidents] had hoped and expected; it was not living by the ‘right’ values nor was it headed in the ‘right’ direction.” America was no longer the land of the free but of the licentious. The totalitarianism from which Solzhenitsyn had escaped loomed as the West’s likely future. Having written a series of novels about how Russia succumbed to Communism, Solzhenitsyn smelled the same social and intellectual rot among us. He thought it his duty to warn us, but nobody listened. Today, his warnings seem prescient. We have continued to follow the path to disaster he mapped.

“Life and death, imprisonment and hunger, the cultivation of the soul despite the captivity of the body: how very limited this is compared to the bright world of political parties, yesterday’s numbers on the stock exchange, amusements without end, and exotic foreign travel!”
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

If Basham is right, elite evangelical compromise is helping to pave the way to “the same social and intellectual rot” against which Solzhenitsyn warned us. The woke, the progressives, the left have made no secret of their agenda. I hope Shepherds for Sale is widely read if only for pointing out the complicity of elite evangelicalism in their agenda. Is Basham overstating the problem of elite evangelical compromise? Perhaps. But perhaps it needs to be overstated so that elite evangelicals wake up to the fact that the spotlight is on them and they can no longer dance to the tune of those who are implacably opposed to them ideologically, whose purpose is to use and discard them and in the end to completely undermine the Christian faith.

Solzhenitsyn was a serious thinker who could never be accused of compromise. He suffered too much. He paid too big a price. He could not be bought. He is a fitting role model for elite evangelicalism. He provides a proper coda for Basham’s book.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

 

Bill Dembski holds octorates in math and philosophy as well as an advance theological degree. He’s published in the peer-reviewed math, engineering, biology, philosophy, and theology literature. His focus is on freedom, technology, and education. Formerly almost exclusively an ID (intelligent design) guy, with most of his writing focused on that topic, he found that even though ID had the better argument, it faced roadblocks designed to stop its success. So his focus shifted to the wider social and political forces that block free human inquiry. Bill still writes a lot on intelligent design but his focus these days is broader.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Xm9k49

/by

Voting as a Kingdom Ambassador

During the presidential elections there are many voices “crying out in the wilderness,” as it were, proclaiming all sorts of weird ideas. One of those ideas is the thought that within this seemingly hostile and divided political and cultural climate even within the church, Christians who hold to a particular view are looking to crown a new political messiah and usher in some sort of a new kingdom.

Voting for President, not a Messiah

I cannot speak for all who claim to follow Jesus Christ. Perhaps there is some odd and rare breed of believers who sees the presidency as salvation. I do not! So I will speak for myself as to how I view the privilege and honor of voting not only as an American citizen, but more importantly as a citizen and ambassador of Heaven. As Christ followers, we are ambassadors who have dual-citizenship and should exercise this right, privilege, and power with wisdom.

“As Christ followers, we are ambassadors who have dual-citizenship and should exercise this right, privilege, and power with wisdom.”

As a citizen of God’s Kingdom and an ambassador of Heaven here on earth, when I vote I am NOT electing a “messiah” as some have flippantly asserted. That’s a gross misrepresentation and or misunderstanding of voting for a presidential candidate. It seems to me this is more of a distorted lens and skewed filter weaponized to silence or dissuade those who hold dissenting views. As ambassadors of Heaven who represent King Jesus, we should have the presence of mind to know that any form of deceptive manipulation, intimidation, gaslighting, or shaming to get someone to bow their knee to our way of seeing things is not a biblical practice.

There’s No Replacing Our Savior

I am NOT voting for a replacement of King Jesus here on this world as the Israelites did when they reject God and demanded an earthly king. I am merely exercising my ambassadorial rights as a representative of Heaven to vote secularly for policies and principles  (NOT a person or people) that approximate as near as possible to Heaven’s Constitution which is God’s Word. That’s what ambassadors do! An ambassador is to represent the King’s mind, His will, intent, and motives according to His Word. It’s that simple. For instance, God is the Author of life, therefore I will not in any way vote for a platform that peddles death through abortion. But what if both parties are for abortion? Then I choose the one that is at the very least attempting to mitigate this evil in some way as opposed to a wholesale free for all abortion policy.

The Litmus Test

Moreover, as Tim Stratton has recently noted:

“Abortion is *still* a litmus test issue. Not only has [one candidate] done the most for the Pro-Life movement than any other President in American history, [the other candidate] will overrule states and [re]codify Roe into federal law. [The former] will leave it as it is which allows We The People to be active in local government to continue the fight against the murder of baby humans.”

Again, as a citizen of Heaven, I am not voting to elect a savior, king, or messiah to somehow usurp Jesus Christ as King. I am seeking to rightly fulfill my duty and obligation as an ambassador of Heaven tasked to represent God’s will on this broken earth as it is in Heaven compelled by His Love, Word and Holy Spirit to the best of my ability. How do I best “love my neighbor?” What policies will point people toward the culture of heaven, by promoting life, goodness, purity, love, praiseworthiness, justice, mercy, righteousness, and joy for the flourishing and well-being of my neighbors?

Remember, there is no perfect party. There will never be one on this side of eternity. There is no perfect candidate running for the presidency. As ambassadors that is never to be the focus anyway. To represent Jesus faithfully and to promote policies that love our neighbors (the second greatest command) is the goal. We are to go into the voting booth as ambassadors representing God’s Kingdom and His never-ending government. When I choose to vote, I am not voting for a politician to replace The King of kings, Lord of lords, Creator, Owner, and Sustainer of all things. Ultimately it would be impossible, to replace Jesus, not to mention patently ridiculously.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

 

Tito Santiago is husband to his beloved wife Christina, and father to his awesome son Josiah David. He serves at Paul and Silas Ministries as a leader via Mentoring Winners and is also the host of Noize Radio Live, a developing online podcast of Kingdom urban music and talk.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3XlDuW9

 

/by

The Ethics of AI in Writing

When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, I’m a luddite. I’m analog over digital. Forget Pandora® and Spotify® or even CD’s. Vinyl LP’s rule them all. I grew up playing outside, climbing trees, chasing things, reveling over sticks – not joysticks, just sticks. If they look like a sword or a gun, even better. I’m a Labrador retriever, but literate. I have the tech-savvy of your average canine too. That’s because I’m Gen X. I was raised before the interweb, before social media and Netflix. I remember Atari, Nintendo, and Sega, and Alladin’s Palace. I slogged through the dial-up era. I even met my wife on Myspace. Rock on! When Sunday comes, I actually leave my house to go to church! I turn my phone off to listen to the sermon. And the sermon isn’t at 1.5x speed either. It’s at regular speed, and it takes forever. But that’s how I roll. There are some disadvantages to being an old-school luddite like me. But there’s one big advantage. We first learned about AI from The Terminator. We see artificial intelligence through the lens of Skynet killbots. We learned to fear it before we were ever tempted to love it.

We’re not surprised to find that ChatGPT, for example, poses some major threats to modern writing. It’s not all bad, of course. AI image-builders are great at stirring your creative juices. Writing engines can be a great research tool for summarizing big data into small bites. Long before ChatGPT hit the market spell-checkers and grammar assistants were helping to spot-clean our writing, on the fly. And I’m sure there is AI-tech is tracking down terrorists, blocking telemarketers, rejecting spam, and exterminating viruses. AI can be wonderful. But, technology can be used for good or evil, depending on how people wield it. So, when it comes to publishing, we should be aware of some of the ethical problems AI poses.

First, if you didn’t write it, you’re not the author.

The most glaring problem with AI writing is plagiarism. If you are writing a paper, and use AI to generate a sentence, a paragraph, or more, then that’s content you didn’t write. If you present that writing as your own, you are lying. That’s plagiarism. Ethically, you would need to report that AI program as a co-author. If you’re using AI to write your blog or online article, you should the least say: “Written with the assistance of AI/ChatGPT/etc.” And while that’s better than nothing, if that’s all you say about AI, it’s still misleading since you didn’t just use AI merely to fact-check or assist with research. The writing itself was produced by a writing-engine. So, you aren’t the sole author AI wrote a significant portion of the article, blog, or book while you are claiming sole authorship. In that case, AI didn’t just “assist” you. You two are co-authors. It’s misleading at best, and dishonest at worst, to claim authorship for written material that you didn’t author. Don’t be surprised then if publishers or professors reject your papers and accuse you of plagiarism if you ever claim AI writing as your own.

Second, if you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

AI is a Godsend when it comes to research. With AI you can get quick summaries, condense tons of information, and hunt down obscure quotes, authors, and books. I’m a big fan of AI as a research tool. But there’s a looming delusion with AI-infused research. People can radically overestimate their expertise to whatever extent they rely on AI to do the “thinking” for them.

Consider it this way. If you had a forklift and used it to lift thousand-pound loads, does that mean you’re strong? Of course not. A forklift is a tool for heavy lifting, and that’s fine. That’s what tools are for, to make work easier. But the machine did the hard work, not you. So you aren’t strong. The machine is. Now imagine you have a forklift, and not only do you use it to lift thousand-pound loads on the job site, but you also use it at your home gym to do your weightlifting. All your strength-training features you sitting in the driver’s seat, steering this forklift to move weights, pull loads, flip tires, push sleds, and carry you through the miles of jogging trail. You were using the forklift for exercise, so does that forklift now mean you’re strong? Still no. You’re no stronger, but likely weaker because that machine is taking over the hands-on work that you should have been doing to grow fit and strong. That’s how we often treat AI. Instead of wielding it as a tool in the hands of a skilled craftsman, it’s an artificial limb rendering us handicapped and codependent. AI, therefore, must be subordinated beneath the task of learning. It should function in service of our learning. As writers, publishers, and content creators, we should be learning about the subjects we’re writing about, we should be gaining experience and expertise. We do well, then, to take full responsibility for the learning task before us, so we’re not using AI to replace learning and knowledge with the appearance of learning substitute for learning and knowledge. Rather we should be using AI to help us learn and gain knowledge. At the end of the day, if you’re reposting AI content that you didn’t learn for yourself then you don’t know whether that content is correct, fair, or reasonable. If you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

Third, if you don’t lead it, you’re led by it.

A third problem facing AI-usage is that it “has a mind of it’s own.” I’m not talking about actual autonomous life. We’re probably not at the point of iRobot or even Skynet. I’m talking about how AI isn’t neutral or objective, and it’s often laughably mistaken. If you followed Google’s “Gemini” launch fiasco then you know what I’m talking about. In February 2024, Google launched an AI-engine called “Gemini.” It could generate images, but never of white people. Apparently, it had been programmed to avoid portraying white people and, instead, to favor images of black people and other minorities. Allegedly, this is from a DEI initiative written into its code. So, if you asked for images of the Pope you might get one of these instead:

Now I’m not too worried about Gemini 1.0. I’m more concerned about the AI engines that are so subtle that you’ll never realize when they skew information in favor of a political narrative. For all writers, editors, authors, and content-creators, we need to do more than take credit for our content. We need to take responsibility for it too. That means we take leadership over the tools used in research, fact-finding, and learning. Instead of letting those tools lead us whichever direction they’re programmed to go, we decide for ourselves whether those directions are worth going, change course as needed, and refuse to let a Google algorithm determine what we are going to think or believe. Another way to say this is that we should expect that AI introduces some degree of slant and bias to the equation. So instead of trusting AI to tell the truth, and report events accurately, we need to keep a healthy dose of skepticism on hand and be ready to correct against our own biases and the bias we find in AI programming.

At an innocent level, an AI writing program might be biased in favor of formal writing – replacing all contractions like “aren’t,” “we’re” and “y’all” with “are not,” “we are,” and “youz guys.” At a more insidious level, AI can insert a decidedly partisan slant – especially when it comes to progressive political agenda items. It would be naïve to think that Google, Bing, Microsoft, etc. aren’t willing and able to let political and religious bias slip into the programming.

There’s No Going Back to the Stone Age

Now I may be a luddite, but I’m no fool. I understand that unless there’s a nuclear fallout, or something comparable, there’s no way we’re going back to the days of dot matrix printers and analog typewriters. We aren’t going back to the stone age as long as these time-saving tools are still functional. I write these warnings to you, not as a prophet but as a minister. I don’t foresee technological disasters crashing down on us. Rather I’m a hopeful Christian encouraging all of you aspiring writers out there to model academic integrity, write well, own your material, and grow through the writing process.

Oh, and Analog > Digital. Long live Vinyl!

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

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

/by

In the Gospels, Jesus is Pro-Life

When you encounter Jesus in the gospels, it’s not hard to see why the world would be a better place if everyone was more like him. And in the gospels, Jesus is pro-life. In fact, life is the issue for Jesus. ‘Life’ is why Jesus came into the world.

The Bible is About Life

The Bible’s most famous verse even says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 NIV)

Humans weren’t originally created to face death (Romans 5:12), and Jesus hates death – that’s why he conquered it (Romans 6:9; 2 Timothy 1:10). Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life (Mark 10:45; John 5:24; 1 Timothy 1:15) – that’s why he came.

So when our world, and our leaders, say that it’s actually better for some innocent people to be killed and moved from life-to-death rather than from death-to-life, we can know that they are not in agreement with the most loving person in history.

Most people want Jesus on their side. But, as Greg Koukl writes:

“What we cannot do, though, is reject the Gospel accounts out of hand and then advance our own personal opinion of the Jesus of the Gospels, since there will be no Jesus left to have a personal opinion about” (para. 17).

So, here is what the gospels say about Jesus, and the beginning and end of life.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the Beginning of Life

In the gospels, we are chronologically introduced to Jesus when the angel Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her that she will miraculously conceive (Luke 1:26-38).

Then we see an example of an unborn baby (John the Baptist – about 22-24 weeks gestation) alive and leaping in the womb (Luke 1:41-44), because of the news that Jesus is going to be born.

Mary is also called “mother” by Elizabeth (Luke 1:43) before Jesus is even born, which presumes the existence of a human being for Mary to be the mother of.

The infancy narrative of Luke’s gospel affirms life in the womb.

In addition, we have a couple of verses in the gospels where Jesus himself (now all grown-up) specifically mentions scenarios of pregnant women.

Speaking about future difficulty, Jesus says: “How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” (Mark 13:17 NIV)

Jesus sympathizes with the hardship that comes with pregnancy and motherhood, particularly during difficult times, and we know how accommodating Jesus is of the women who follow him and listen to his teaching.[i]

Jesus champions women in the gospels. But Jesus is also a champion of the birth of human beings. He says, “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.” (John 16:21 ESV)

Jesus recognizes the pain that comes with pregnancy, but he also says that the joy of a human being born into the world is greater than this agonizing pain – to the point that the anguish of pregnancy is not even remembered when measured against the birth of a new human being into the world.

Jesus’ statement in John 16:21 is non-particular and absolute. He is saying that there is joy when any human being, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), is born into the world. Jesus views human life too highly for us to say that he is anything other than pro-life.

And Jesus is also clear that testing circumstances and the inevitability of suffering is no reason not to live (John 16:33). In fact, the meek life Jesus himself chose to live demonstrates this (just read Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Philippians 2:6-8). Life in-and-of-itself is precious to Jesus and not to be discarded.

The only time Jesus says someone would be “better off” not to be born is when he speaks about Judas (Mark 14:21) – someone who is not innocent, and someone of whom Jesus is foreknowingly aware of the consequences for his betrayal.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the End of Life

Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life, and this is patterned in the gospels when Jesus raises a little girl (Mark 5:41-42), a young man (Luke 7:14-15), and a weak-and-ill grown man (John 11:43-44) from the dead.

In our culture, we hear the argument that some (weaker) people are better off dead because the suffering that they will continue to face in their lives is ‘intolerable’. The argument presents death as the best, and even the only, ‘solution’.

Those whom Jesus healed all eventually died again. But he never treated death as the ‘solution’ for their situations.

Jesus admits that life will be hard: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33 NIV). But “take heart” connotes perseverance, endurance, and trust in God – the opposite of opting for death.

Opting for death as the solution to life’s sufferings is not on Jesus’ radar. In fact, Jesus is the only (truly) innocent person who needed to face physical death to fix the problem of suffering. And even in his story, life triumphs over death.

The gospel message in its most basic form is that Jesus came to save us from death and give us life. But those who champion death as a solution want the reverse: they want death to ‘save’ someone from life.

Such an attitude is an affront to the love of Jesus, because it runs completely counter to the power of the gospel message. Jesus came that people may have life (John 10:10), which you can’t have if you opt for death as a solution.

Societies that Pursue Jesus Flourish the Most

‘Life’ is not a peripheral issue for Jesus. If ‘life’ matters to history’s greatest person, it should matter to us. Peoples and nations who have followed the principles that matter to Jesus have succeeded in history. Pray that Jesus would be placed at the heart of our society. Apart from him, we are told by the God-man himself that we can do nothing (John 15:5). Pray that our nation would value life. Life matters.

“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” (John 1:4 NIV)

References:

[i] For more on this see, Rebecca Mclaughlin, Jesus Through the Eyes of Women (Austin, TX: Gospel Coalition, 2022).

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/4dzGX9y

/by

The New Cultural Christianity

A few months ago I wrote an article on the West’s move towards a post-Christian culture (Post-Christianity: What’s That?). Since the article’s publication at least two prominent atheists decried the fall of Christianity in the West. One claims to have converted to Christianity (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and the other maintains atheism but embraces “cultural Christianity” (Richard Dawkins).[1] They, along with fellow atheists Bret Weinstein and Tom Holland recognize that the fall of the West will be accomplished with the dismantling of the Church. The New Atheists of twenty years ago assumed that logic, reason, and science would provide the basis for a moral society as it abandoned God and moved into the post-Christian era.

Much to their chagrin, however, this has not been the case. Dawkins began to recognize the threat radical Islam is to the West years ago. He knew that the vacuum of religiosity could clear the way for something much worse. Nature abhors a vacuum and Dawkins rightfully understood that while his desire to see religion dissipate seemed noble, the results could be catastrophic. I always found it interesting that he pursued the eradication of faith anyway.

But this is not a new realization. Many atheists are simply starting to recognize what Frederick Nietzsche proclaimed over a century ago. Nietzsche, an atheist himself, understood full well the terrible implications of a godless West even if, initially, those like Sam Harris, who once said “I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like ‘Science must destroy religion’” and others might sneer at the idea. But Nietzsche’s words are worth a second, third, and maybe hundredth look as we barrel down the road of post-Christianity because his words seem more prophetic now than when they were first penned.

From Nietszche’s Madman to the Übermensch

Nietzsche recounts the story of the madman that declares the terrible consequences of God’s death:

“Where is God?” he cried, ‘I’ll tell you! We have killed him – you and I! We are all his murderers. But how did we do this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained the earth from its son? Where is it moving now… God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him. How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us?… Finally he threw his lantern on the ground so that it broke into pieces and went out. ‘I come too early, he then said; ‘my time is not yet… The deed is still more remote to them than the remotest stars – and yet they have done it themselves!”[2]

Nietzsche surmised that those in the enlightenment had not understood the consequences of God’s philosophical and scientific “death.” He understood that the absence of God would plunge society into nihilism and futility. While God may not exist, perhaps, his perceived existence was necessary to hold society together.

Nietzsche then proposes a possible solution to the problem. A pursuit of the god within ourselves. He named this pursuit of the ultimate human the Übermensch. The Übermensch (which literally means the “over-man”) has been an oft-misunderstood concept. At times it has been seen as the ideal moral human or even as a superior form of the human “race” as the Nazis seemed to use it, but this would be a misunderstanding of Nietzsche’s goal in developing the concept.

In his mind, if we had successfully killed God, we could either drift to nihilism or pursue an “ultimate man” or “beyond man” as the archetype of what it means to be truly human.

Nietzsche understood something about human nature that many new atheists simply did not. That, at our core, human beings are religious creatures. We desire to pursue something greater than ourselves; we desire to order society by a set of ideals, we desire order and not anarchy to hold our culture together. We will all, in the end, worship something or someone.

This is the missing link between a Christian and a post-Christian culture. Human beings cannot order themselves purely along scientific or materialistic lines. Societies and cultures for millennia have proven this pursuit futile. Even supposed secular states tend to develop a religious culture around their leaders. The Czar, the Dictator, and the Communist leader demand religious-like loyalty. They develop their own sets of dogmas, doctrines, and worship standards whether they would admit it or not and they do so to maintain and establish a common culture. Sure, they claim there is no god above them but that does not stop them from declaring themselves a god unto themselves.

In the end the idea of the ultimate man, the Übermensch, has been adopted a variety of ways throughout history from racial lines to philosophical humanism. Society would look to construct a new ideal through which to order itself, one unshackled from the restraints of archaic Christian morality.

The word culture is derived from the Latin word cultus which means both to till and to worship. And while etymology does not equate to definition it is fascinating to think that we could move into a post-Christian cultus or an atheistic cultus. It would seem to be a contradiction in terms and thus would lead one to wonder if a godless culture is even possible.

Perhaps one is technically possible but I contend that the human tendency towards a common culture based on certain metaphysical beliefs about reality renders the proposition dubious at best.

Every culture eventually orders itself around its highest ideal and whatever the highest ideal is, for all intents and purposes, is God. For any culture to survive it must have guiding principles through which it orders itself and often, these principles will take on a religious undertone. There is inherently a religious structure to how human beings organize themselves.  This is not an argument for God’s existence, rather, it is an observation concerning human history.

All cultures eventually sustain a religious type of structure, or, as Nietzsche observed, they are on the precipice of anarchy, destruction, and nihilism. So, if a culture is going to move beyond its religious foundation, to endure, it must replace said religious foundation with another religious type foundation. In Nietzsche’s mind that was the idea of the Übermensch. The Übermensch was the ultimate good (as opposed to the Maximally Great Being revealed in scripture), but one that catered to, instead of restraining, humanity’s base passions and desires.

“The church combats the passions by cutting them off in every sense: its technique, its ‘cure’ is castration. It never asks: ‘how can a desire be spiritualized, beautified, deified?” – Jack Maden, “Ubermensch Explained.”

In other words, it is through the release of “repression” and the embracing of our passions and the self-mastery thereof that we find our purpose, meaning, and hope without a god. In our current moment I believe we are experiencing a shift from Orthodox Cultural Christianity to Post-Christian Cultural Christianity. A type of Christianity that seeks to spiritualize, beautify, and deify our subjective passions, desires and proclivities. We are not progressing towards atheism as much as we are remaking Christianity through the idea of the Übermensch ideal.

This could seem like a contradiction but let me explain:

The New Cultural Christianity

I believe that our current cultural context seeks to remake cultural Christianity from what it was, particularly an orthodox understanding of God’s character and sin, to an Übermensch Cultural Christianity. One that looks inside the man to find the ideal and encourages the living out of our passions and desires.

This shift has made Progressive Christianity the new cultural Christianity of the West.

What do I mean by that?

First, I want to build my case on two different statistics that seem to contradict each other, and these statistics, I believe, have been interpreted wrongly on the individual level, but they help us to understand our new cultural Christianity in the west and in America in particular.

A recent study by Barna Research Group it was found that 71% of people have a high view of Jesus but only 40% have a high view of Church. When narrowed to “no faith” individuals we find 40% having a high view of Jesus with only 21% having a high view of the Church. However, the starkest contrast is between self-described “Christians” wherein 84% have a high view of Jesus but only 58% have a high view of the local Church.

A lot has been made of these statistics. Most have cast aspersions on the local church for misrepresenting Jesus and engaging in rampant hypocrisy. In many ways I do not disagree completely with some of these statements but there is more going on in this statistic than meets the eye and certainly more than an easy explanation of “church hypocrisy” can offer.

For instance, what does one really mean when he or she says the Church is hypocritical? Depending on the reason this could be either a serious charge or a subjective opinion with no basis in reality. Perhaps the next statistic will shed some light on this.

In a separate study led by Probe Ministries it was found that 60% of self-professing born again Christians between the ages of 18 and 40 believe Jesus isn’t the only way to Heaven. In a similar study orchestrated by Pew Research nearly 40% of Americans believe that atheists can get into heaven and a little over one third believe unbelievers can gain access to heaven. This would place all of these people well outside the realm of historic Christian orthodoxy but many within the realm of progressive Christianity.

Obviously, statistics through surveys only tell us how people answer specific questions and not why they answer the question this way. However, if these two or three statistics are accurate in describing our current religiosity in the United States, I believe that we can reasonably conclude that the reason for the low view of Church is not primarily because it represents Christ poorly but because we understand the person and charge of Jesus differently.

I am fully willing to admit that churches have not represented Christ well in a myriad of ways, but I do not believe this explains the wide discrepancy in the statistics. Given the two statistics together I believe it is much more likely that we have redefined Jesus than that the Church has failed to represent Him well enough.

Are there cases of Christian hypocrisy? Absolutely. However, what is called hypocrisy and what is actual hypocrisy can be two different things. For instance, a Christian that holds to a traditional view of heaven and hell and a traditional view of marriage and sexuality might be (and often is) called a hypocrite because this same Christian believes that God is an omnibenevolent God and full of grace and mercy.

But these are only hypocritical beliefs if we redefine the baseline of what it truly means to be Christian. If we replace the cultural definitions of truth, love, mercy, and Jesus with a new Übermensch type redefinition. I believe this is what we are truly experiencing in our current cultural moment. The new cultural religion is not entirely post-Christian, as in materialistic and atheistic, but it is narcissistic spiritualism coopting cultural Christian values and remaking them into progressive cultural Christianity.

Progressive Christianity has redefined Jesus into the Übermensch and repackaged Christianity in its likeness. I am aware that this is a reductive analysis, clearly more philosophical threads could be pulled to analyze how exactly we got here. For a broader case see Carl Trueman’s work The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (2020).  The point here is to draw a line of thought from the principle elucidated by Nietzsche to our modern moment. This is not to say that the progressive culture is actively adopting the idea of the Übermensch, but rather that the principle introduced by Nietzsche’s recognition of the necessity of God (or something like him) to the success of society is playing itself out through the restructuring of our cultural Christianity.

It is not so much that our culture has moved beyond Christianity but that it has completely redefined it. Jesus, as understood in our current cultural milieu, is a different character altogether. An Übermensch type of character meant to affirm our desires, passions, political systems and aberrant sexuality (for example, here). This cultural Christianity sheds the shackles of historical Christian morality and embraces the subjective nature of the Übermensch. In other words, the vacuum left by the retreat of the orthodox values of the Church has not been replaced by science, reason, or logic but by a new, more palatable form of Christianity (if one can call it Christianity at all). A Christianity that operates smoothly within the fluidity of post-modernism and can adapt with the concepts that can synthesize together seemingly opposing truth claims.

If your desires tell you that to avoid nihilism you must augment your body to conform with your subjective gender identity, then the Übermensch Cultural Christian (we will call them Progressive Christians) will affirm such drastic action. Why? Because this Jesus is a different Jesus and because we have not so much moved beyond a cultural Christianity but have reinvented what it means to be a cultural Christian. This Jesus operates under new definitions of love, truth, morality, holiness and justice.

It is no wonder that progressive Christianity happens to often affirm nearly all the dogmatic moral stances of the current secular cultural values system. This is because progressive Christianity has supplanted orthodox Christianity as the dominant Cultural Christianity. In Progressive Christianity Jesus would not want you to be transformed by the renewing of your mind and away from certain sins but to set yourself free of the sins of certainty, doctrines of hell and the shackles of prudish thought.

Thus, if you express a culturally heterodox position based in classic orthodox Christian theology you will be maligned as hateful, bigoted, or hypocritical. The new cultural Christianity declares you not really a Christian, or at least, a hypocritical one.

The Challenge Before Us

Many have wondered how someone like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi could declare their fealty to the Catholic Church while affirming positions on abortion, marriage, and contraception that would have, in the past, excommunicated them from the Church. The answer lies within this new cultural Christianity. Biden and Pelosi are not Catholics in any meaningful or historical sense of the term, but they are cultural Catholics or current cultural Christians. They have adopted progressively loaded theology for political expedience. They have adopted the new cultural Christianity.

30 Years Ago . . .

It seems to me that progressive Christianity is becoming (if it is not already) the cultural Christianity of the West and of the United States in particular. Thirty years ago, cultural Christians would espouse a similar moral framework to born again Christians. This is why the church could open its doors and receive unbelievers from their communities and preach the gospel from the pulpit and it made sense even to the unbeliever. Not everyone believed or responded with faith, but they understood the argument. They understood it because the culture was built upon it. Obviously, this form of cultural Christianity was not without its warts but now we see a completely different effect.

When unbelievers or unchurched people come and sit in our congregations, they may consider themselves “cultural Christians” but their approach to morality has been shaped and molded by progressive cultural Christianity. The gospel from the pulpit in this moment makes no sense to them. Sin is now oppression and repression not immoral behavior that misses the mark of the holy God. Love is affirmation of the inner-man and a necessity to aid in bending reality around those desires to find true happiness.

Sounds a bit like Neitzsche’s Übermensch.

When these cultural Christians come to our churches, they hear the same words but through a completely different cultural lens. They are cultural Christians, but their sense of Christianity is shaped by progressive theology and humanistic philosophy. It becomes a cross-cultural conversation (See: 3 conversations and how to have them) even among people who would call themselves Christians.

Thirty years ago the mainline denominations followed suit with the cultural Christianity of the day. Mainline denominations have often blown with winds of doctrine shaped by cultural Christianity and given the United Methodist Church’s recent removal of the prohibition on gay clergy it is safe to say that their drifting into the progressive cultural Christianity is nearly complete.

Interestingly, many formerly recognized “new atheists” are seeing this before our Christian leaders. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, James Lindsey and even Richard Dawkins are seeing it, but they haven’t the faintest clue what to do about it. Dawkins decries the rise of Islam in England but struggles to recognize that the rise of Islam is, at least in part, due to this new form of cultural Christianity. A cultural Christianity that affirms multiple paths to the ultimate good will open itself up to the belief systems of Islam and others. A cultural Christianity that views scripture and sin primarily through the lens of intersectionality and oppressed-oppressor narratives will likely embrace any belief system deemed as being “othered” by the West.

Ironically, it is Dawkins’ belief that real Christianity ought to be abandoned while cultural Christianity ought to remain that leads us into this new cultural Christianity that resembles Nietzsche’s remedy for nihilism in the Übermensch.

So yes, I believe we have moved into a post-Christian era, but more than that I believe that post-Christianity has merely become an embrace of a new kind of cultural Christianity, and it is closely aligned with progressive theology. Once we recognize this, the cultural picture suddenly becomes much clearer and perhaps our strategies for engagement and evangelism will follow suit.

References:

[1] Richard Dawkins, Interview with LBC (May 2024), at: https://youtu.be/COHgEFUFWyg

[2] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Bernard Williams, ed., Josephine Naukhoff, trans. (Cambridge & NY: Cambridge, 2001), 119-120.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4d2BgjR

/by

Character Matters

Character and morality often intersect in their definitions. Even for the non-Christians, all people are given a moral compass from the time of our birth. As image bearers of God, a person is able to recognize right from wrong. Though these matters have been declared more subjective over time, murder is still deemed hateful by the large majority. Stealing is considered a crime by most law-abiding citizens. There are obvious signs that either positively or negatively allude to one’s character.

Character Defined

Character, defined by the world, is commonly based on what is done rather than what is believed. A person is considered morally good by the things that they do for themselves or someone else. For instance, donating to multiple charities and volunteering at a homeless shelter may lead someone to believe that they are a wonderful person. Though these things are certainly beneficial, they do not, by themselves, earn God’s favor.

Biblical character is achieved through having a relationship with Christ. His law being written on our hearts is the way in which we determine that which is truly good, right, and pure. We walk in authentic morality because we walk with the Lord. Our ultimate example of moral perfection is Christ alone. Having lived blamelessly and without any sin, He is our perfect example. In our belief in Jesus, we experience true freedom and relief knowing that salvation is not works-based. Salvation is a gift. It is placed on us in the grace and forgiveness of Jesus.

Character is earned and kept through worshipful obedience. Obedience is a posture of the heart. If one’s motive does not align with the Lord’s purposes, obedience is inauthentic. A small example may be reading the Bible. If doing so is simply a checklist item among others during our morning routine, we are operating in a harmful works-based mentality that limits our view of God’s love for us. In the book Gentle and Lowly (2020), the author Gavin Ortlund states, “We sin- not just in the past but in the present, and not only by our disobedience but by our ‘of-works’ obedience. We are perversely resistant to letting Christ love us” (pg. 186).

I once heard someone say that they felt confident in their eternal security because of his record of attendance at church and history of financial generosity. At the time, I was not spiritually mature enough to gently redirect this harmful way of thinking. I now understand that if character is not about the heart of God himself, it is meaningless.

Character Witnessed

As previously mentioned, we beautifully witness character through the many attributes of our Lord. He is inherently everything that we are not. He is perfect in love, justice, power, sovereignty, grace, authority, forgiveness, mercy, goodness, patience, and much more. The character of God is our comfort. In our delight and embrace of who he is, our lives begin to look completely different. This is not anything we accomplish in our strength but in our submission. As we humbly submit to God, we are transformed. Nothing good inside of us can or will exist outside of the person of Christ. Though we might do apparently good things, true goodness is obtained only as the Holy Spirit works in and through us on a daily basis.

As we approach the Word of God, our intent should be to uncover more about who he is. Oftentimes, we look to Scripture for answers about our life and identity. The Bible is about who God is. Yet, in knowing him, we do begin to better understand who we are and the purpose we have been given. As A.W Tozer famously says in Knowledge of the Holy, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us” (pg. 1).

The gospels serve as eye-witness accounts to Christ’s ministry on earth. We learn from his parables, his miracles, and ultimately, his example. I often reflect on the longest recorded message that Jesus preached, The Sermon on the Mount. Matthew chapters five, six, and seven encompass many of life’s most important matters. Though each lesson holds tremendous weight and value, the Beatitudes in chapter five speak directly to one’s character. The word “blessed” that comes before each one is the Greek word makarios which can be translated to “happy” in our English language. All throughout Scripture, it is evident that our humble obedience to the Lord precedes his faithful blessing unto us. It is the character of God that allows us to be richly blessed in our depravity before him. He supplies our needs according to the riches of glory in Christ Jesus. His blessing is his heart towards us.

Character Activated

Perhaps humility is the most important characteristic of a believer. It is from our humility that we can love, serve, submit, and honor both God and others with authenticity. Without the acknowledgement of our nothingness outside of Christ, we walk in deceptive pride that hinders our obedience. Yet, in emptying ourselves daily, we are best positioned to glorify the Lord with the help of his Holy Spirit.

Character that is marked by the fruit of the Spirit comes as we walk closely with him. Christian calling and character are mutually dependent on one another. Romans chapter twelve says that we must resist conforming to the world and be transformed by the renewal of our mind. In order to serve Jesus from a place of spiritual maturity, integrity, and authenticity we must look different from the world around us.

Secular culture says that a calling is fulfilled in the measure of wealth and knowledge. On the contrary, John 13:35 says that the world will know a disciple by how they love. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 13 reminds us that we can obtain many spiritual gifts and talents, but without love, it is all worthless. It is not what we do that matters to God. It is who we are.

The mutual calling of every person on planet earth is to glorify the Lord. We exist to worship his name. Though many will not do this, it is why we are here. The specific calling on a person’s life is best revealed in seeking Jesus. Whether it be business, performance, creativity, pastoring, or parenting, our calling glorifies God as we operate in Christlike character.

When people look at your life, what do they see? Our character is positively or negatively viewed by others on a daily basis. For the Christian, a lot is at stake. If a well-known pastor preaches a remarkable sermon on generosity only to leave church and tip his waitress a few coins, there may be a character flaw. How we treat people matters. The love we operate in has every potential to point someone to Jesus. May our lives be a reflection of the only One who can save and deliver. May we never blend in but stand out. Character champions calling when Christ is at the center of all that we do.

Recommended Resources:

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

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

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

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

Annie Brown has joined us as Content Coordinator working with the Truth That Matters team. In this role, Annie will be creating written content meant to edify and equip lay learners and scheduling content channels as needed. In addition to being a student at SES, Annie has a B.S. in Family & Child Development from Liberty University. “I am grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Truth That Matters Team at SES. Using my passion of writing to prayerfully bless others excites me, and I look forward to what the Lord has in store.”

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3SoTLa7

/by

Is Social Justice Hijacking the Gospel?

,

Progressive Christian blogger and author John Pavlovitz wrote,  “We believe that social justice is the heart of the Gospel…” Is he right? And what exactly is social justice?

I recently posted an article in which I described Progressive Christian churches as swapping out the gospel for social justice. I got a lot of pushback on this point, but I believe that most of this pushback comes down to a misunderstanding of words.

Some are quick to say, “Social justice is good!” or “Social justice is bad!” without giving any nuanced thought to what the phrase actually means. Recently, I listened to a Mortification of Spin podcast episode called “Hijacking Social Justice,” that brilliantly dove into the history and meaning of the phrase and how it interacts with the gospel. It inspired this article, and I highly recommend listening to it.

What is Social Justice? 

Justice is a strong and consistent theme throughout Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments. It’s clear that God loves justice, and we ought to care about it too. But what is social justice? American philosopher and novelist Michael Novak wrote:

Social justice is one of the terms most often used in ethical and political discourse. It is also a term used with the least care. I have searched in vain for definitions of it. In its fuzziness and warmth, everyone wants to cuddle it. But virtually no one will give you a forthright definition of it.

A little history….. 

In ancient Greece, Aristotle defined “justice” simply as giving each person his due. In times of crisis, war, and political upheaval, this concept became more complicated. A more general type of justice had to be thought through when it just wasn’t possible to give each individual person their due. Echoing Aristotle, St. Augustine described the task of justice “to see that to each is given what belongs to each.”(1)

​Today, the term is more vague than it was historically and leans toward being associated with more liberal values, rather than justice in general. For example, “social justice” tends to be applied to issues like women’s rights, immigration, and gay rights, while generally not being applied to the millions of babies killed by abortion each year, or the plight of the most persecuted group in the world—Christians.

It would seem that there is an extraordinarily selective use of the term in our current culture. 

Social Justice: a meaningful phrase—or just a cliche? 

“Social Justice” has, in some ways, become a cliche—a catch-all phrase that can mean anything from a call for government action to simply being a good neighbor. Because of this, it’s very difficult to figure out how the term applies to the mission of the Church. In her classic essay, Augustine on Justice, Philosopher Mary T. Clark described St. Augustine’s view like this:

Rightly related to God, man is properly related within himself and to the external world of people and things. 

Augustine believed that it was impossible for people to be “just” in their relation with each other unless their relationship with God was first rightly ordered within themselves.

Justice begins in the hearts of people, not in government programs.  Westminster Seminary Church History professor Dr. Carl Trueman said,

Justice, traditionally and historically, is a function of a virtuous citizenry.  You cannot ultimately legislate justice in the truest sense of the word. You have to produce a citizenry, a society of people, who are virtuously just. You can riot on as many streets as you want. You join as many lobby groups as you want. You can sign as many petitions as you want. But the problem of justice is much deeper than the symptomatic issue of racism (or something like that,) that people are addressing head-on. What we’re really seeing in the vacuous way social justice is being used as a term now, is the vacuous nature of moral society…..There is no agreed moral content that allows us to give any meaningful content to the term “social justice” whatsoever.

Without a commonly agreed-upon definition of morality, “social justice” becomes an entirely subjective term. What’s the best way to promote a virtuous citizenry with a common morality? By the transformation of the hearts of people by the gospel.

What did Jesus say about social justice?

​Jesus said that the most important command is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. After that, to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 22:36-40) In a sense, this is a call for a meaningful definition of social justice, not a twitter hashtag version. In fact, Jesus commanded that we help the needy and do our giving in secret (Matthew 6:3-4).

When defined Jesus’ way, the “loving our neighbor as ourselves” part of our faith is an outworking of our faith, not the saving part—and other people don’t always know about it.

What is the gospel? 

When defined biblically, there is no contradiction between social justice and the gospel, but it’s very important to understand both terms and how they interact with each other. Now that we’ve defined social justice, let’s define the gospel. In his book, The Story of Reality, Greg Koukl lays out the gospel in four parts: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration.

To put it very simply, God created the world and everything in it and called it good. Humans fell from God’s grace by rebelling against Him (in other words, we messed it all up, and became separated from God.) God stepped into His creation to redeem the people He created, lived a sinless life, and paid for our rebellion (sin) with His death. He defeated death by resurrecting Himself from the dead and has made a way for us to be in His presence forever if we accept His free gift of salvation and put our trust in Him.

Of course, there is a lot of stuff in between all of that, but this is the basic outline. (For an excellent 5-minute presentation of the gospel, watch this video from James White…. seriously—watch it!)

With this definition of the gospel, Jesus sent His followers out to “make disciples of all nations” in Matthew 28. This is exactly the gospel Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, converting 3,000 people in Acts chapter 2.

Is Social Justice Hijacking the gospel? 

As citizens in a free society, it’s perfectly appropriate for Christians to speak to public officials and to utilize their right to vote. There’s a place for a pastor to speak against injustice and oppression in a sermon from the Word of God. But we need the core gospel as our foundation for going out into the world to be salt and light.

We don’t always get to see true social justice on this side of heaven, but this is why the gospel is so beautiful and freeing. Through our mission to bring the gospel into the whole world, freedom is birthed into the hearts of men and women, and often, true social justice will follow. (For example, the work of abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley was an outworking of their deep faith in Christ… and a fruitful one!)

When social justice is divorced from its biblical context, it can become, at best, a distraction from the heart of the gospel, and at worst, an unbiblical agenda covered with a Christian veneer.  

In some circles, social justice is hijacking the gospel. But as long as we are clear on what the true definitions of “gospel” and “social justice” are, we won’t be in danger of confusing the two.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

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

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

 

Alisa Childers is a wife, a mom, an author, a blogger, a speaker, and a worship leader. She was a member of the award-winning CCM recording group ZOEgirl. Author of Another Gospel (2020), Live Your Truth, and Other Lies (2022), and most recently coauthored The Deconstruction of Christianity (2024), Alisa has become a popular speaker at apologetics and Christian worldview conferences, including ReThink, Unshaken, and Fearless Faith. She has also published at The Gospel Coalition, Crosswalk, the Stream, For Every Mom, Decision magazine, and The Christian Post. You can find out more about her writing and recording ministry at alisachilders.com.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3VNNMxy

/by

Apologetics and Politics

How should we live?
How should we think?
How should we vote?

Are these questions with objectively right or wrong answers? That is to say, is it true — apart from human opinion — that humanity ought to live, think, and even vote in a certain manner?

Some Questions that Need Answering

If it is not objectively right or wrong to live, think, or vote in a certain manner, then does anything really matter? Moreover, if it is objectively wrong to live, think, and vote in a certain manner — how would we know? After all, is how we ought to vote determined by the majority vote? That doesn’t seem right. Are these things merely based on your emotions or “how it makes you feel?”

That doesn’t seem right either because, as Ben Shapiro often says “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” One might not have warm feelings toward Ben Shapiro, but it is quite hard to disagree with his mantra. In fact, it is impossible to argue against it without proving his point (since one would have to appeal to facts to argue against the importance of facts).

Ultimately, the answer to these questions boils down to the ontological question: “Does God exist?” More specifically: “Is Christianity true?”

I will soon explain why the existence or non-existence of God is bedrock. But if how we ought to live, think, and vote are based upon this bigger ontological question, the epistemological  questions are raised once again: “How would we know?”

How would we know if God exists — or not? And if God does exist, how would we know if Christianity is true? After all, perhaps Islam, Judaism, or some form of deism is true? How would we know? Can we know?

Before we answer that question, we need ask one more question: “What does it mean to know?” What is knowledge? The late Dallas Willard (my first lecturing professor at Biola University) provides a working definition of knowledge:

[block quote] “We have knowledge of something when we are representing it as it actually is, on an appropriate basis of thought and experience.”[1]

Willard shares that we have knowledge of something when we have proper justification or warrant for our beliefs and that our beliefs regarding it conform to reality. Socrates referred to this justification as a “tether to reality.”

A statement is true when it corresponds to reality and reality is the way things are. Knowledge, therefore, must align with truth (based on evidence or insight) and it must be “tethered” to reality. That is to say, knowledge is not based upon luck.

An Illustration from Math Class

To put it in simple terms, consider three students in a math class. The teacher gives the students a multiple-choice quiz to see if they KNOW how to solve a story problem. The first student does not understand the problem at all, but luckily happens to guess the correct answer.

He circles the correct answer on the paper. . . but does he KNOW the answer – does he possess KNOWLEDGE?

The next student does not understand the problem either, but he cheats and looks on his neighbor’s quiz, hoping she got it right. And he circles one of the alternative options, the same one his neighbor circled.

The answer happens to be correct, but does he KNOW the answer?

Finally, the last student not only understands the problem just fine, but she shows her work leading to the correct answer. The fact that she “showed her work” is the “tether” that demonstrates to her teacher, and to herself, that she possesses KNOWLEDGE of reality.

Now, one may happen to possess true beliefs. If, however, he does not possess a proper justification,  a “tether” for a specific belief, and his true beliefs are simply based on “luck,” his belief does not qualify as a knowledge claim (even if it happens to be true).

Willard notes that rational people are those who base their lives upon knowledge. It is not required to know something is true with absolute 100 percent certainty. It simply requires a commitment to a way of life and thought based upon evidence and a justified trust in God through knowledge.

A Tether to Reality

Let us return to the BIG question: Can we have real knowledge of God? A cumulative case of evidence appealing to logic, science, and history pointing toward God’s existence and the truth of Christianity says we can. Consider a few of these multiple “tethers”:

These evidences provide the justification required for the knowledge of God, but what view of God is true? After all, we have the “final four” from which to choose:

  1. Christianity
  2. Judaism
  3. Islam
  4. Deism

This all comes down to the “tether” or historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Since Judaism, Islam, and deism all deny the resurrection of Jesus, and Christianity affirms it, if there is evidence based upon the historical method that Jesus actually rose from the dead, then Christianity would provide the BEST explanation of all the data. Guess what . . . we have that evidence:

  1. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Facts)
  2. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Explanation)

It is also vital to note that Christianity enjoys the “Ring of Truth” when compared and contrasted against other contenders. Moreover, we can also have knowledge of God through a personal and experiential relationship with Him through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit — but this is also supported by all the evidence previously mentioned.

With a cumulative case of logical arguments in mind, a Christian should be a person of faith . . . because he or she is primarily a person of knowledge. Christians put their trust in what they know is probably true. This is what William Lane Craig refers to as “reasonable faith.”

What I’m NOT Saying

Please hear me: I am not proposing that we can know Christian theism is true with 100 percent certainty — if we had that it would not be “faith.” We can, however, gain knowledge of God with a high degrees of certainty. This includes not only knowledge of a powerful and personal Creator of the universe, but also knowledge of the particular truth of Christianity through evidential and spiritual means.

If God exists and Christianity is true, then it would follow that humanity was created to live a certain way and created to think in a certain manner. That is to say, there would be some objective “shoulds” to how humans ought to live and how we ought to think. It logically follows that this would even include how we ought to vote and think about cultural and political issues (See “The Great Commission Is Racist” as an example).

Now, many people think that we should not mix politics and religion. Is that true?  Are they right? Why think a thing like that?

A Tether to Political Reality

It would be absurd not to have one’s worldview (religion) influence their politics. In fact, one’s worldview ought to do at least that much (and not the other way around). That is to say, if one truly believes that God exists, created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose, and that Jesus revealed how we ought to live, then the laws of politicians will either approximate the “law above the law” (ultimate reality) or not.

If this is the case, then politicians can actually pass “illegal laws” that “We The People” ought to resist and rebel against.

If God does not exist, however, then humanity was not created on purpose or for any specific purpose. Thus, we would be mere accidents if atheism is true. If humanity is nothing but accidents then politics is objectively meaningless (along with everything else) as there would be no objective purpose in the existence of humanity (if this is the case, say goodbye to objective or unalienable human rights).

Thus, on atheism, it would not really be wrong (objectively speaking) if Obama, Trump, Hitler, or Stalin were calling the shots. It is simply one’s irrelevant subjective opinion (which is merely causally determined by physics and chemistry).

If God exists and Christianity is true, however, then one’s subjective political opinions can be objectively right or objectively wrong.

A Tether Between Politics & Gospel

It is often asserted — even by some Christians — that they do not want their “politics and religion mixed.” This is a good indicator that they probably do not understand their own religion for at least two reasons: (1) Jesus got involved in politics, and (2) we are commanded to love all people and to share the gospel with the world.

First, consider the fact that Jesus constantly interacted with the Pharisees in the New Testament. The Pharisees were the religious and political rulers of Israel. Matthew 23:23-24 provides a good example (note that Jesus was not always “nice”):

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

Frank Turek points out the following in Does Abortion Trump Everything Else? (I encourage all to listen to this podcast in its entirety):

“Not all moral laws are of equal weight. Jesus spoke of weightier matters of the law in Matthew 23:23. And the least of these, Matthew 5:19. And the greatest commandment, Matthew 22:36. He told Pilot that Judas had committed the greater sin, John 19:11.”

Think about the weightier or “more important matters of the law” and modern-day America. Politicians today are more concerned about the consequences of using plastic drinking straws than placing restrictions on abortion (killing millions of innocent human beings) and actually advocate for it in many cases. What do you think Jesus would say to these politicians or those who vote for them? Based on His reaction to the political leaders of Israel, do you think Jesus would worry about hurting the feelings of modern-day politicians or those who vote for them?

Indeed, I believe Jesus would say “facts don’t care about your feelings.” We must not disregard the “more important matters of the law.”

Second, if a Christian does not take politics seriously, then he or she probably does not take evangelism seriously. Turek shows a satellite image of the Korean peninsula to make this point (See Why Christians Should Be Involved In Politics).

Notice the stark contrast between the north and south. South Korea is filled with light, activity, and productivity. According to Turek, “it is one of the most Christianized countries in the world.” North Korea, on the other hand, stands in polar contrast to their neighbors south of the border. North Korea is dark and seemingly “dead.” Turek accurately describes it as a big “concentration camp.” What is the difference between North and South Korea? One word: POLITICS! We can clarify: Communism!

Many South Koreans have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ because there is political freedom to share the gospel. The communist government of North Korea, on the other hand, does not allow the gospel to be shared — it is a communist dictatorship based upon Marxism which is an ideology that makes Hitler’s Nazism look like a summer picnic. Indeed, we must treat the “hammer and sickle” in the same manner in which we treat the swastika.

If the gospel message is true (and we have good reason to believe it is true) then this is the most important information a person could ever have access to or possess. If we truly love all people — as Jesus commanded — then we must desire the people who have never heard the gospel to have access to this eternally vital information.

Since Marxist policies (politics) are keeping millions of souls from hearing the gospel, if we truly love and care for all humans, then we ought to care about politics and vote in a certain manner. We ought to be “Anti-Ma” (anti-Marxism). To not care about politics is to not care about people.

The Lesser of Two Evils

If Christianity is true, then we must “mix” it with politics — at least if you are striving to love God with all of your mind and live a consistent Christian life striving to love all people. After all, if Christianity corresponds to reality, then the politicians you support and vote for should advance policies that correspond to reality too. Of course, no politician will do this perfectly, but some political views and policies approximate to reality (and the nature of God) more than others.

Unless Jesus Christ is running for office, all elections are a vote between the lesser of two evils. As Turek notes, if Billy Graham was running against Hitler, it would still be a vote between the lesser of two evils. Obviously, one who strives to be an objectively good person would do anything possible to keep Hitler — because of his politics — out of office (even if Hitler happened to be “nicer” than the other candidate). That would include “mixing” politics with religion and sharing his or her views with as many voters as possible.

Bottom line:  Understanding ultimate reality by way of apologetics, philosophy, and logical theology places humanity in a position to know how we ought to live, think, and even how we ought to vote in an objective sense. Indeed, understanding ultimate reality provides an expertise allowing one to intelligently provide insight into things that fall under the umbrella of ultimate reality — like some political issues — as an expert too. That is to say, political opinions can be informed from knowledge of reality.

If one’s religion is true and their political view is also objectively good or right, then one’s religion and politics must be “mixed” . . . independent if they realize it or not. Moreover, if there is an objective manner in which we ought to live and think, then one’s vote will be objectively right or objectively wrong. Choose wisely and stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

References:

[1] Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, Harper Collins, New York, NY, 2009.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

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

 

Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3KL9SdU

 

/by

How to Talk with Your Teens about Sex and Love from a Biblical Worldview: Interview with Sean McDowell

,

Over the last several years, I’ve spoken on the subject of apologetics to many groups of parents at churches and conferences. Although none of my talks deal with the topic of sexuality, I can hardly think of a time when I wasn’t asked a question about it either in the Q & A or in private conversation afterward with an individual parent. In particular, parents always want to know what they should say to their kids about homosexuality and transgender questions. These are undoubtedly the most top of mind questions parents have today.

Not the Sex Question Again!

While I can appreciate that these specific questions are front and center in culture, I always feel a bit disappointed when I get them. Frankly, I feel like we’ve really missed the boat if this is the “big” question people have after a much broader talk on apologetics. I say that for two reasons.

First, kids won’t care what the Bible says about homosexuality and transgender questions if they don’t view the Bible as authoritative. That’s why my answer to parents always begins the same: “Can you tell me first what your child believes about the Bible? Does he/she believe it’s the authoritative Word of God?” I’d say that out of 10 people who ask the question, a solid 7 of them will say, “I’m not sure.” It’s deeply problematic that many Christian parents have come to believe that our biggest conversation challenge in today’s culture is how to answer controversial questions about sexuality . . . even though they often aren’t sure what their kids believe about the Bible itself! If we spent as much time teaching kids why there’s good reason to believe the Bible is true as we did addressing subjects that today’s culture happens to bring to the forefront, we would be in a much more natural position to address difficult topics.

Second, there is so much more than homosexuality and transgender questions that our kids need to understand about a biblical view of sexuality. That’s why I’m thrilled about Sean McDowell’s new book, Chasing Love: Sex, Love, and Relationships in a Confused Culture. It’s a book for teens that provides a comprehensive biblical look at sex, love, and relationships–the best resource I’ve seen on the subject!

Sean took the time to answer several questions I sent him on how to talk with teens about sex and love. Enjoy the following interview, and if you have kids in this age range, you must get this book.

An Interview with Sean McDowell

Natasha: Sean, when Christian parents think about conversations they need to have with their kids about sex, they’re often thinking about two basic things: 1) How do I teach my kids (and convince them!) that it’s biblically right and best to wait for marriage? and 2) How do I talk about the hot cultural topics of homosexuality and gender identity from a biblical perspective? But, as your book shows, these questions only scratch the surface of a whole framework kids need to have for thinking about love and sex from a biblical worldview. Can you explain why this approach is so important, and give some examples of subjects you cover outside of what parents typically think about?

Sean: After working with thousands of young people for a couple decades, I am convinced that the vast majority of Christian kids are far more secular in their thinking than we realize. Studies by the Barna Group support this observation. Thus, it’s not enough to simply teach biblical principles to our kids–we have to first deconstruct their secular ideas about love, freedom, and happiness, and then biblical teaching will make sense.

I was speaking at a conference in early 2020 and a teenager came up to me and said, “Thanks for your talk on pornography. I have been told my whole life why porn is wrong, but I never understood why.” Being told what to believe is not enough today. Kids need to know why the Bible gives the teaching that it gives. In my experience, when kids get the “why” behind the “what,” they are empowered to live out a Christian sexual ethic.

Once kids understand the positive reasons for the biblical teaching on sex, love and relationships, then they are in a much better position to discuss some of the “thornier” topics today including pornography, sex abuse, LGBTQ issues, and so on. That’s why I arranged the book in three main sections: (1) Clearing away faulty ideas from our culture, (2) explaining the biblical view of sex, love, and marriage, and then (3) “hot topics.”

Natasha: Christians are often known for what we’re “against” when it comes to topics of love and sex, and that perception easily gets passed on to teens. What are some things Christian parents do that inadvertently solidifies this view in their kids’ minds?

Sean: One trap Christian parents can fall into is being entirely critical of how non-Christians tend to approach sex and relationships. While there is undoubtedly a time and place to criticize how our world approaches sex, I try to help students find redeeming truths underneath the surface. Let’s lead with common ground, and then we can get to our differences.

For instance, consider the topic of cohabitation. As I document in Chasing Love, the research shows that living together before marriage puts a future marriage at a serious disadvantage. Students need to know why cohabitation is a bad idea. But we also need them to realize that many people live together first because they actually think it will help them in their future marriage. Many have seen their parents go through a divorce and they don’t want to make the same mistake. So, underneath the bad idea of living together is often a good desire to have healthy relationships.

Rather than leading with criticism, let’s lead with what we have in common with others. In this case, it’s the desire for lasting relationships. Then we can get to our differences. In my view, this approach is biblical, charitable, and often more effective (see Proverbs 24:3).

Natasha: What are some of the big things you want teens to understand Christians are “for” in the areas of love and sex?

Sean: One of the main takeaways I hope students get is that the commands of Jesus are for our good. In one of the early chapters, I ask students to imagine what the world would be like if everyone followed the sexual ethic of Jesus. There would be no sexually transmitted diseases, crude sexual humor, sex abuse, pornography, abortion, or deadbeat dads. My goal is for students to realize that the teachings of Jesus are for individual flourishing and for societal good. God’s commands are not to harm us, as our society proclaims, but are actually for our good.

In sum, God is for marriage. God is for love. God is for commitment. God is for meaningful relationships. God is for sex. But He has given us guidelines about how to experience these in a way that shows love to Him and to others.

Natasha: You speak to and teach a lot of kids in the age range this book is written for. In your experience, what do they most misunderstand about what the Bible teaches on these subjects?

Sean: In my experience, students are deeply confused about the nature of freedom. Many young Christians think that freedom is doing whatever they want without restraint. But this freedom from is only half the story. There is also freedom for. Think about it this way: Just like a car that has been designed by its creator to operate in a certain fashion, and is only “free” when used accordingly, humans have been created for a greater purpose and experience freedom when they discover and live that purpose. The free person not only has the capacity of choice (freedom from) but orients his or her life to God’s design (freedom for).

So, what have we been made for? Scripture says we are made to love God and love other people. In other words, we are only free when we are in healthy, intimate relationships with others. Here is how I put it in Chasing Love: “According to the Christian worldview, true freedom is not a matter of doing what you want without restraint, but cultivating the right wants and living in obedience to God’s will. In other words, freedom results when our wants align with the will of God.”

Students tend to believe that God’s commands limit their freedom. What we must help them see is that God’s commands actually set them free. That’s why David rejoiced in the law of the Lord (Psalm 119). And that’s why Moses said that God’s commands were for the good of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 10:13).

Natasha: Let’s be honest—a lot of parents are pretty uncomfortable talking about sex-related subjects with their kids. For some parents, it may even be hard to hand their kids a book like Chasing Love! Can you share some ideas for how to break the ice and not feel completely awkward handing your teen a book on these subjects? And what might a parent say to get their child interested in reading this if they don’t necessarily want to read another “Christian” book from mom and dad?

Sean: I told my 12-year-old daughter that if she read the book and was willing to simply talk with me about it, I would buy her some new shoes. This strategy may not work with all kids, but it did with her. She agreed to read it entirely and then go to the local coffee shop with me and simply discuss it (no lectures!). I asked her what she learned, what stories stood out to her, and if there was anything she disagreed with. And then we went together to buy the shoes (for the record, she talked me into buying two pairs at the outlet since they’re the price of one pair elsewhere!).

If you haven’t talked with your kids about sex, I would encourage you to take your son or daughter out for a meal or coffee and just share your story. Don’t lecture your son or daughter, but just share your experience with relationships and some lessons you’ve learned along the way. And then you can give the book as a follow up that expresses your heart for your son or daughter.

Natasha: If you could give parents one piece of advice on using your book effectively in their kids’ lives, what would it be?

Sean: Find a way to motivate your son or daughter to read it. And consider reading it alongside them. Students will benefit from reading it alone, but they will benefit immensely from discussing it with you. Studies show that worldviews are best passed through relationships. Simply discussing these issues with your kids, even if you don’t have all the answers, is a “win” for them. I realize these conversations can be awkward, but if we don’t talk with our kids, they will almost assuredly take their cues about sex, love, and relationships from the wider culture.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

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

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

 

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

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/45rXVDj

/by

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

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.

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book 

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org. 

Originally Posted at: https://bit.ly/3Xgh8pB

 

/by