Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Nicholas Eberstadt, the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, is a demographic expert. He has identified some sobering trends that are cause for concern for the future of America. In his article, “Can America Cope with Demographic Decline?”, Eberstadt points out that the traditional attempts to address those worries through government policy and financial incentives “vastly underestimate the challenge they wish to address.”

Going Lower

The birth rate required to support a society’s population stability is 2.1 births per woman. Eberstadt’s research found that in 2019, the birth rate in the U.S. was 1.71, the lowest rate ever recorded up to that point. Then, COVID-19 hit. In 2020, the rate fell to 1.64. Projected estimates for the as-yet-unreported first quarter of 2021 point toward another 5% decrease. These trends portend some challenging socioeconomic times ahead.

Some post-pandemic rebound may be expected, of course. But fertility forecasts are notoriously unreliable … there are reasons to suspect that U.S. fertility could actually decline even further in the years ahead … Decades of accumulating social and political dysfunction have left America less favorably poised for, and perhaps also less capable of seizing, the advantages of the new demographic era ahead of us.

Fertility rates below 1.3 will halve a population in less than 45 years. And there is no documented case of a society surviving a rate that low at any time in history prior to 1990. Depopulation trends have already started in Russia and Japan. Projections for the European Union show that theirs will begin in 2027. China could commence even sooner.

Financing Fertility

Typically, governments attempt to boost birth rates using financial incentives. But this has proven to be a faulty solution. Russia, China, Singapore, and Japan’s efforts to stimulate fertility using financial carrots paid small dividends in the short term. In each case, financial inducements had some impact on the timing of their citizenry’s birth decisions – they are most attractive to those at the lowest income and education levels. But, ultimately, they didn’t have much impact on the total number of births, which usually return to at or below their pre-stimulus levels once the incentive runs its course.

Cultural Headwinds

The prognosis for reversing these trends is not good. Several factors lead to that conclusion. As John Stonestreet has pointed out, radical feminism demanded that women be “liberated from their own creative potential” and can be directly connected to the inclination to postpone or forgo childbirth altogether.

Since 1980, the median age of first marriage has gone from 24.7 for men and 22 for women to 30 and 28 respectively. The additional six years for women puts them almost exactly at their peak fertility.

But the Millennials who occupy that age category …

are of a markedly different mindset from that of their Boomer parents. Their lived experience is in a very different America. People under 40 do not have much memory of America with a vibrant, private-sector-driven economy. They came of age during a strange historical run of unusually poor political leadership … Theirs is an America where public confidence in the nation’s basic institutions has undergone a gruesome and wholesale slide.

Religiosity, which has historically encouraged the pursuit of the traditional family, has also been a casualty of the cultural milieu. A Gallup poll earlier this year revealed that just 36 percent of Millennials report any religious affiliation. They likewise express pessimism about the country’s future, they lack pride in it, and they are increasingly unwilling to defend it. As Eberstadt puts it, young Americans have become “demoralized and de-moralized.”

Resurrecting Marriage

There is a way out of this. And it depends on the same thing it always has – God’s design for marriage and the command to “go forth and multiply.” Mark Regnerus addresses these issues in his book, The Future of Marriage, wherein he acknowledges all of the above. His research points out that “young Christians are significantly influenced by the culture around them … [and] have a sense of swimming upstream in their efforts to marry and form families.” But, despite all this, he argues that:

Marriage as an institution has changed very little … On these points, young Christians are substantially similar to their parents and grandparents. They have not lost sight of the value of lasting love. Fundamentally, they know what it means to wed … If marriage is so deeply written into our nature, it probably won’t disappear … the young will go on looking for love, and the world will still be peopled. Civilization will continue.

These kinds of motivations don’t come from the government. That’s Nicholas Eberstadt’s point. He is cautiously optimistic that a “spontaneous, intellectually and spiritually disruptive ferment from within civil society might offer a homegrown American answer” to our demographic decline.

Reality Rules: The Transgender War on Women

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Bob Perry

Back in the good ‘ole days of 2015, the fight over allowing transgender women to use the women’s bathroom in Charlotte, North Carolina, took center stage in the national political debate. At the time, only a Chicken Little would suggest that mixing gender preference and sexual identity could lead to harmful outcomes. In an article titled, “‘Transgender’ Needs A Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” David Marcus pointed out that trans advocates:

… insisted that the idea anyone would use the law to dress as a woman and invade women’s private spaces [was] a myth. [But that November] Richard Rodriguez was arrested for dressing as a woman and peeking in stalls in the women’s room at Virginia’s Potomac Mills Mall … [Further, they claimed that] Charlotte’s law was never intended to allow someone like Rodriguez to put on a dress and enter women’s facilities.[1]

David Marcus’s fear that women would get hurt was far more than a myth. It was an understatement. Today, transgender women are invading more than women’s restrooms.

Beyond the Bathroom

The move from spying on girls in the ladies’ room to the cases of sexual assault in schools we saw highlighted in last November’s Virginia Governor’s race is, by definition, an escalating threat to women.[2] But the ramifications of transgender ideology are even more far-reaching than that.

Last summer, New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard made history as the first transgender woman to compete in Olympic weightlifting.[3]
In Australia, 6’2”, 220-pound Hannah Mouncey overpowered other women in both Australian rules football and on the national handball team.[4]
Caitlyn Jenner not only graced the cover of Vanity Fair magazine in seductive lingerie but was also named Glamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year” in 2015.
In October 2021, Rachel Levine became the first woman ever promoted to the rank of four-star admiral in the U. S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.[5]

And what about women’s collegiate swimming? Traditionally, swimmers give us electrifying moments where they break records by tenths or even hundredths of a second. But recently, the University of Pennsylvania’s transgender swimmer, Lia Thomas, won the 200-meter freestyle by nearly 8 seconds, the 500-meter by over 12 seconds, and the 1,650-meter freestyle by 38 seconds. Two of those were the best times in the nation.[6]

But the reaction to Lia’s victories hasn’t been electrifying at all. Her teammates have noted that:

The crowd is unusually silent when Thomas crosses the finish line, cheering for the second-place finisher instead … the team feels obligated to pretend they are happy for Thomas when they really feel demoralized and frustrated.[7]

Women Strike Back

For all their successes, these “women” don’t seem to be getting much love from their fellow females. In fact, there has been a backlash against every one of them. And the backlash has been led by women. Take Rose McGowan, for instance, who:

launched a blistering attack on the world’s most famous trans woman – former Olympic athlete Caitlyn Jenner … “You’re a woman now? Well, [expletive deleted] learn that we have had a VERY different experience than your life of male privilege,” McGowan said in a Facebook post she later deleted after facing accusations of transphobia. “Being a woman comes with a lot of baggage. The weight of unequal history. You’d do well to learn it. You’d do well to wake up. Woman of the year? Not by a long [expletive deleted] shot.”[8]

Suddenly, feminism and transgenderism – both darlings of Leftist ideology – have created a new aphorism as it applies to the Patriarchy: “The enemy of my enemy … is my enemy.”

The snake, it seems, is eating its own tail.

Reality Bites

Behind Rose McGowan’s tirade is the tacit admission that transgender women are actually men. It’s the same reality that drove Cynthia Millen, a three-decade USA Swimming official, to resign her position in the wake of Lia Thomas’s record-setting achievements:

Everything fair about swimming is being destroyed … The fact is that swimming is a sport in which bodies compete against bodies. Identities do not compete against identities … Men are different from women, men swimmers are different from women, and they will always be faster than women … While Lia Thomas is a child of God, he is a biological male who is competing against women and no matter how much testosterone suppression drugs he takes, he will always be a biological male and have the advantage [of having a] larger lung capacity, larger heart, greater circulation, a bigger skeleton, and less fat … I can no longer participate in a sport that allows biological men to compete against women.[9]

Don’t miss Cynthia Millen’s words: “Lia Thomas is a child of God.” Therein lies the transcendent reality in which the solution to all this mayhem must be grounded. Lia is a human being made in the image of God. For that, she deserves our love and respect. But that doesn’t oblige us to patronize her delusion. The stakes are too high for that.

The ascendancy of transgender ideology is harming women in more ways than even its critics could have imagined. But it is doing more than that. It’s a torpedo aimed at the foundations of a stable, healthy society. Whether it’s in the pool, on the playing field, in the boardroom, or in the sanctuary, denying reality is always destructive to those who practice it.

Footnotes

[1] David Marcus, “‘Transgender’ Needs a Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” The Federalist,

[2] Kaylee McGhee White, “Loudoun County Schools Covered Up Rape, Prosecuted a Concerned Father to Protect Transgender Agenda,” Washington Examiner,

[3] James Ellingworth & Sally Ho, “Transgender Weightlifter Hubbard Makes History at Olympics,” AP News

[4] Warner Todd Huston, “Aussie Trans Athlete Hannah Mouncey Towers Above Opponents,” Breitbart News

[5] Matt Lavietes, “Rachel Levine Becomes Nation’s First Transgender Four-Star Admiral,” NBC News

[6] Charmaine Patterson, “Swimmer Lia Thomas, Who is Transgender, Continues to Shatter Women’s Records,” People

[7] “The Week,” National Review, December 27, 2021, p. 10.

[8] Jill Stark, “Call Yourself a Woman? Feminists Take on Trans Community in Bitter Debate,” The Sydney Morning Herald

[9] Yaron Steinbuch, “Transgender Swimmer Lia Thomas is ‘Destroying’ Sport, Official Says,” New York Post

Mass Shootings & Pro-Choice Hysteria: Three Questions that Show the Insanity of Modern Moral Outrage

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Adam Tucker

As I sit at my computer thinking about the incomprehensible evil of yet another mass shooting, this time in Uvalde, Texas, the floods of outrage, sadness, fear, and uncertainty grip me as I’m sure they do many of you. Ironically, news of the tragedy broke just minutes before attending the end-of-year ceremonies at my kids’ school. Tears filled my eyes as I watched the boys and girls sing and receive their awards knowing that so many parents will not get to experience such joys after this latest tragedy. I truly cannot imagine.

Yet, while the news coming out of Texas is very disturbing, there is something else I can’t get out of my mind. Just over a week ago, my family and I had the opportunity to take in some of the landmarks in our nation’s capital. As we navigated busy crosswalks and a drizzly day around the National Mall, we began hearing loud music and very angry people shouting over a PA system. Once we reached the front of the White House (the obligatory photo op), we could see the area just below the Washington Monument covered with thousands of people pouring into the streets holding signs and banging drums. Little did we know, this was one of nearly 400 “Bans Off Our Bodies” rallies organized across the country to protest the recently leaked documents from the Supreme Court that point to a possible overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The sadness I feel about the Uvalde school-shooting was equaled by the anger and heartbreak I felt seeing the narcissism, hedonism, and utter foolhardy reasoning occurring at that pro-choice rally.

What is wrong with this scenario? How can we (rightly) mourn the loss of “our most vulnerable” one day and cheer for the death of the unborn (those who are truly our most vulnerable) the next? More to the point, how can we pretend that these utterly contradictory attitudes are sane?

To be frank, we can’t, and we shouldn’t, because such attitudes demonstrate the literal insanity that has taken over modern moral sensibilities and outrage. We can demonstrate this insanity by asking three important questions.

What is a ‘Right’?

No doubt, in the days to come there will be vicious calls for more gun laws, and more debates will occur over the right to bear arms. Likewise, those from the “Bans Off Our Bodies” rally will continue to argue that they have a right to an abortion, and those opposing them will argue the unborn have their own right to life. We constantly hear about gay rights, trans rights, equal rights, etc. This language of “rights” gets thrown around all the time, but what exactly is a right? It will be most helpful to first determine what a right is not.

Rights can’t be merely subjective preferences. If that were the case, then no mass shooter, abortionist, protester, Supreme Court Justice, etc. could, in principle, do anything objectively wrong. At most, we could say their behavior is not our preferred behavior, but why should anyone care about your preferred behavior? In this case, we could not say that anything is actually wrong (or right for that matter). That certainly doesn’t seem correct.

Nor can we conclude that rights are the types of things that apply universally to everything. After all, we don’t put lions on trial for killing a gazelle or even another lion. Hence, there seems to be something specific to human beings regarding rights.

Similarly, rights can’t just be a matter of legislation from some government body. Things like slavery used to be perfectly legal, but we rightly concluded that such behavior is objectively wrong regardless of its legality. Governments are tasked with protecting rights, not granting them. This understanding was foundational to the formulation of America’s founding documents (even if it was inconsistently lived out). It was also understood when even governments themselves, like Nazi Germany for example, were charged with crimes against “humanity” despite the legal grounds in Nazi Germany for killing Jews.

So rights are the kinds of things that aren’t merely opinions. They are not simply based on what is legal, and they seem to apply specifically to human beings. We’re getting closer to understanding what a right is, but what exactly does it mean to be human, and why do humans have these things we call rights?

Why Do Humans Have Rights?

Classically understood, a thing is what it is according to its nature. In other words, all humans are humans because we instantiate a common human nature (in a moderate-realist sense) that makes us a human rather than, say, a dog or a cat. This seems rather obvious, but it is in fact something that has been abandoned in our modern rationale where anyone can “be” anything they want to “be.” In reality, however, we all know this simple fact about natures. No one intentionally goes to the veterinarian rather than a medical doctor when he’s sick. Why? Because he knows the difference between humans and dogs!

Because we can know the natures of things, we can know what constitutes a thing’s good. Correctly understood, “good” is that which fulfills the end or purpose of some thing according to that thing’s nature. To quote Thomas Aquinas, “Good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary.” For example, an eye that doesn’t hear well provides no useful information regarding whether the eye is good or not. An eye that doesn’t see well, however, is an objectively bad eye because it does not fulfill its purpose according to its nature as an eye. Such an understanding turns to moral goodness because humans have a rational nature. We are able both to know what is good for us and choose whether to pursue that good or not. Because the good of our intellects is knowing truth, and the good of our wills is pursuing what the intellect perceives as good, acting contrary to reason just is to act immorally. What does this have to do with rights? We’re getting there.

Notice that this is a completely objective standard of goodness. For example, no matter how much someone wants his eyes to hear, they are simply not the kinds of things meant for hearing. We discover such truths about reality because of our ability to know the natures of things. We do not invent these truths. This understanding of morality is called natural law (based on the good according to our nature as human beings), and it is broadly the basis for our Declaration of Independence and the civil rights movement. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ … To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.”

This knowledge of natural law gives us the foundation to discover the objective and unchanging human rights to which we’re all entitled based on our shared objective and unchanging human nature. To see why, consider this. Because we are by nature social creatures, we rely on each other for our well-being in various ways (both positively and negatively). As Christian philosopher Dr. Edward Feser observes,

“… we are all obliged to refrain from interfering with others’ attempts to fulfill the various moral obligations placed on them by the natural law; the most basic natural right is the right to do what is good and not to be coerced into doing evil.”

From this understanding we can extrapolate, among other things, the basic rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Of course, this does not mean that we are free to pursue our personal idea of “happiness” without limits. Quite the opposite. We are, after all, naturally directed to pursuing what is actually true and what is actually good. Much like my children having fun on the playground, they are free to play anywhere within the bounds of the playground (their “good” if you will), but they are not free to play in the street. As Feser goes on to say,

“While the very concept of a right entails a certain measure of liberty, that liberty cannot be absolute; for since the point of natural rights is to enable us to realize the ends set for us by nature [our actual good], there cannot, even in principle, be a natural right to do what is contrary to the realization of those ends. In short, there cannot be a natural right to do wrong.”

What are the Implications for Modern Moral Outrage?

Given the knowledge that human rights are based on the natural law thinking outlined above, we can ask our final question: what are the implications of this understanding for the modern moral outrage we see all around us?

While not all of our social ills can be blamed on any one thing, there is one issue that has contributed to societal downfall more than perhaps any other. That issue is sex. Let’s briefly examine this issue in light of our natural law reasoning. We can see that human sexual faculties are directed towards the dual purposes of procreation and emotional bonding with the opposite sex. Intercourse naturally results in children who require the long-term care of a mother and father. Adultery, pornography, promiscuity, homosexual behavior, and many other misdirected sexual behaviors are directly contrary to the good of our sexual faculties. Therefore, such behaviors are necessarily bad for us regardless of someone’s particular feelings or desires (after all, we all have desires on which we ought not act).

Recall the Aquinas quote above, “Good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary.” Since human rights are based in natural law, and natural law shows the necessarily evil nature of the modern sexual revolution, we can see that someone cannot rationally argue for sexual vice by claiming her “rights” are being violated. Why? Because no such rights exist (that is not to say that there needs to be government-enforced laws against every vice). Moreover, if someone wants to simply jettison this natural law reasoning all together, then she is also eliminating the very possibility of objective human rights, in which case, there is no rational argument to be made for keeping “bans off [your] bodies.” You can’t have it both ways.

Feser summarizes the situation well,

“Similarly, in a person or society dominated by sexual vice, it isn’t just moral understanding in matters of sex that would be undermined, but moral understanding in general. For the general idea of human faculties having natural purposes is unlikely to survive when the natural purposes of our sexual faculties, specifically (which are about as obvious as natural purposes can be), are obscured. … The infection is bound to leap from the individual, to the culture at large, to the political sphere. In the Republic, Plato suggests that egalitarian societies tend to become dominated by lust, and have a tendency to degenerate into tyrannies. For souls dominated by lust are least able to restrain their appetites or to tolerate disapproval of them, which leads to general moral breakdown and an increase in the number of individuals with especially disordered and ruthless temperaments.”

We are left with a culture whose moral reasoning is truly insane, having largely been blinded by decades of sexual vice masquerading as sexual freedom. This is how such a culture can in one breath rightly mourn the tragic loss of young lives, and use the next breath to hysterically shout about a “woman’s right to choose” to murder her unborn baby. It truly is a psychosis that must be countered with a generation of well-trained and sober-minded individuals who are prepared to tackle the insanity head-on.

In short, there can be no legitimate moral outrage apart from human rights. And there can be no actual human rights apart from natural law. But natural law shows that things like abortion, homosexual behavior, adultery, pornography, etc. are necessarily bad for us (i.e., evil). Thus, we have no “rights” to such things. These ideas stand or fall together.
The simple fact is, without moral sanity there can be no real social justice. To once more quote Feser’s summation of the issue,

“In reality, there cannot possibly be true social justice without sound sexual morals, because the family is the foundation of social order and the family cannot be healthy without sound sexual morals. The sexual revolution is the cause of millions of children being left fatherless, with the intergenerational poverty and social disorder that that entails. Nor is there any greater manifestation of the deep selfishness that makes social justice impossible than the callous willingness of millions to murder their own children in the womb. Talk about social injustice that ignores the fundamental role of the sexual revolution in fostering such injustice is mere chatter – unserious, sentimental, and prone to make modern people comfortable in their sins rather than telling them what they really need to hear.”

One Last Thought

The astute reader may notice that no Bible verses have been quoted thus far. That may seem like a slap in the face to some, but it is indicative of the common grace and general revelation God has given all of us. A strong case can be made for objective morality apart from any appeal to God or the Bible. On the flip side, the reality of objective morality, based on natural law, can serve as the basis for a strong argument for the existence of God. In turn, such an argument can then lead to a demonstration of the truthfulness of Christianity as a whole.

May wise Christ-followers use the reality of modern moral outrage as a springboard for pointing others to the truth of the Gospel. Ultimate healing of broken homes, broken lives, and evil hearts can only come through the hope and salvation found in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As we live out the Christian life amidst the insanity around us, let us do so with 2 Tim. 2:24-26 in our minds,

“The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance leading them to the knowledge of the truth. Then they may come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

New Age and Christian Terms: Same Words Different Meanings. What’s the Difference?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

Energy. Universe. I AM. Manifesting. Meditation. Visualize. Source.

These are just a few words that were familiar to me in the New Age/Thought. These have different meanings in the Christian world and for the average person. Sandra Tanner, a well-known former Mormon, once said, “if you [as a Christian] find yourself agreeing with a Mormon, then someone hasn’t defined their terms.” This isn’t just true with Mormonism. Even though people use the same words, we must understand their definition of what they mean to understand when it departs from Orthodox Christianity. We need to make a distinction between beliefs.

I will attempt to list what I consider to be the top 5 New Age terms that need to be clarified. I will define what these words mean in the New Age vs. what they mean in Christianity. This is not an exhaustive definition but is a general understanding of each word. Because New Age is such a “salad bar” belief system, many people who consider themselves “spiritual” can define each of these slightly differently.

1. Energy- In the New Age, this can mean an invisible power or force that can change and affect things. I used to think of this as a sort of “magic.” We’re all made up of energy and can manipulate it with our thoughts, words, and feelings. It’s the all-encompassing power in the Universe that allows us to manipulate our surroundings and reality. Sometimes, people in their pursuit of mixed spirituality will mistake this for being the “Holy Spirit,” that God is really Universal energy.

In Christianity, when someone says “good vibes” or “bad energy,” it’s not the same thing. They’re trying to convey a bad or good feeling of sorts. Sometimes people innocently use this word to size up what we’re feeling in a room or with people. Scientifically speaking, of course, it’s the general energy our body gives us to move. In Biblical Christianity, we understand there’s a spiritual realm. Thoughts and feelings play a part in how God works, but they’re not the basis of truth. As Christians, we have the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but a significant difference is that we recognize God’s sovereignty over our own.

2. Universe/Source- In the New Age, Universe and Source (with a capital “s” and “u”) are buzz words for a pantheistic type of “God”: all is God, and God is all. All are One, and all are united. It can be seen as an “it,” an impersonal force, perhaps a form of conscious ‘love’ fueling the cosmos, and it grants us our desires and guides us. This is where we receive our answers from.

In Christianity, these definitions are used quite literally. The universe is a creation of God. God does not equal the Universe. He holds the universe in His hands. God is personal. He has feelings and is our Creator. He’s not our genie that grants wishes. He’s not submissive to us.

3. I AM- In the New Age, this is a huge affirmation word. I AM has creative power in your life. You say it, believe it, speak it into the universe, and so it shall be. Like Christianity, I AM is another name for God in the New Age. However, the implications are startlingly different. This is a word used to tap into our personal divinity, being able to tell the Universe what we need from it. I AM well. I AM rich. I AM complete etc., are all examples of what I used to say to make it so. In other words, Jesus was claiming His divinity when He said He was the I AM. We all can claim this divinity just like He did because He is the “Way-shower.” The late Wayne Dyer, a popular New Thought teacher, was especially vocal about this teaching. He says:

“The words I AM are your sacred identification as God- your highest self. Take care how you use this term because saying anything after I AM that’s incongruent with God is really taking the Lord’s name in vain!… I AM God is not blasphemy. It’s your identity!”

Pretty cringe, right?

I AM in Christianity is so different! This is Jesus’ exclusive claim to be God, the one and only. In the Old Testament, God claimed to be the I AM. This was the Great I AM, the testimony of the identity of Yahweh, the Almighty God. In my opinion, no other word best describes the attributes of God than “I AM.”

He is the fullness of perfection and is all we need.

4. Manifesting/Visualize- These words are used a lot together in the new age. Whatever you think and feel, you manifest in your reality. The Law of Attraction, a New Thought teaching that says “like attracts like,” is probably one of the biggest examples of this practice. If you visualize it (whatever “it” is, good or bad) and send the energy out into the Universe, then it will mirror that and manifest in your world. This is why positive thinking and actions are paramount to the type of outcome you want to manifest in your life. Growing up, I was told that visualizing was a form of “prayer” to the universe.

In Christianity, in general, there’s nothing wrong with thinking ahead in life and having a mental image of the desired outcome in our lives. A lot of people do this with no metaphysical intentions. But the most significant difference is that we’re not our own sovereigns. We are under the will of the Father. His will be done, which is tough for some people to accept. This means voluntarily giving up control. In Christianity, whatever we have isn’t there because we manifested, visualized, or attracted it to us. God is the one who’s ultimately in control if we’ve given Him our lives.

5. Meditation- New Age meditation is a meditative state where we are all about our energies, chakras, one with the universe, visualizing, etc. It’s a mental state focused on finding inner peace and enlightenment of sorts. Many people will meditate in hopes of having a vision, meeting their spirit guide, or invoking inner peace or a spiritual awakening.

In Christianity, this word means something very different. Believe it or not, meditation itself isn’t unbiblical at all. It’s what we’re meditating on that makes the difference. Many scriptures point to meditating on God’s word and Him alone. An example of this is perhaps memorizing scripture and focusing on God’s will around a particular avenue we should go in life. Our focus is on God and His will.

Does anyone notice a theme of sorts here? In the New Age/New Thought, it’s all about us and our will.

In Christianity, it’s all about God and His will.

5 STEPS TO LIVING A JOY FILLED LIFE

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

In a recent conversation with a Christian friend, he shared how several unexpected killjoys had sprung up in his life and dragged him down to a dark place. Since then, my friend has struggled to find joy in his life.

What about you? Are you finding it hard to be joyful in life?

The reality is, we could all use more joy in our lives. Which leads me to share with you the first of five steps to living a more joyful life.

The first step is to seek joy from God.

Joy is a gift from God. It doesn’t come from people or objects in the world. You might get temporary relief or happiness. But the joy the Bible speaks of is so much more. As we read in the Bible, joy has to do with a deep state of gladness, cheer, and contentment. In the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “joy” is “closely related to gladness and happiness, although joy is more a state of being than an emotion; a result of choice.”

David declared that it’s in the presence of God that there is “fullness of joy” (Ps. 16:11). In Nehemiah 8:10, we read that we find strength in “the joy of the Lord.” In Galatians 5:22, Paul lists “joy” as a byproduct of the Holy Spirit.

If you want more joy in life—look no further. Look to God.

The second step is to acknowledge and cherish the eternal blessings you have as a child of God:

You are forgiven and have peace in Christ– “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near” (Ephesians 2:13-17).
You are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit – “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14).
You have a living hope in Christ – “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:3-5).

The third step is bringing balance into your life.

You’ve heard the saying, don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s next to impossible to appreciate the joy you have as a Christian if you live a hurried-up life filled with stress. In the book of Philippians, Paul writes, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (4:6-7).

We can’t overlook that Paul wrote the words “don’t be anxious” while in prison. Despite the various trials and the ups and downs, Paul still found joy amid some of his darkest hours. That, my friend, is joy!

It would be great that every time you feel worried or anxious, you simply pray for it to go away, and just like that, it’s gone! But, as you very well know, that’s not reality. We may not like it, but it’s in hardships and feeling depressed that God’s joy is made so much more real to us.

So, offer up prayers of thanksgiving to help eliminate any worry or stress that might be preventing you from living a life of joy.

The fourth step involves setting boundaries with certain people who suck the joy out of you.

Setting boundaries is a hard thing to implement for anyone. Starting with the fact that no one likes confrontation. And secondly, most of the “joy suckers” in our lives are people we have no choice but to be around. They can be a family member—a co-worker.

So, the obvious thing is not to overreact and pull away from everybody. What you want to do is assess your relationships and determine who is the most self-centered, critical, argumentative, and who tends to push your buttons. In a nutshell, who leaves you feeling drained and discouraged most of the time?

Once you’ve realized who the “joy suckers” are, the next challenge is to draw the necessary boundaries to protect you from allowing this person to steal your joy. As mentioned in step one, joy is a choice. You may not always have a choice who you are around. But you do have a choice how you interact with them and they with you. So, make sure you bathe your relationships in prayer and seek wise counsel before setting certain boundaries.

The fifth step is to enjoy life today!

It’s easy to take for granted what we have in our lives. I’ll admit that when I get impatient with people or with work-related stuff, I can miss out on enjoying life. Just the other night, I told my wife how I needed not to lose sight of enjoying the simple moments in life. Whether it be throwing the football with one of my kids or sipping a cup of coffee with a friend. I need to be more sensitive and aware of counting my blessings every day.

How about you? What are some blessings you’ve received from God that you need to appreciate more?

As you seek to implement these five steps to achieving a more joyful life, seek to add the prayer from Paul below to enrich your motivation.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” Romans 15:13

What Words Tell Us About Culture

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Scott Reynolds

What gives words meaning? Is it the author, the words themselves, the reader, or something else altogether? At different points in history all the above had a place of authority giving words their meaning. However, as the world changes and the power behind words change it causes great change in culture. Exploring the power of words is an extension of exploring the power of culture and who has the power to shape culture.

Jacques Derrida and the Postmodern Revolution

Jacques Derrida stands at the center of the radical postmodern literary revolution. He is burdened by the idea that anyone can use a text to position authority over someone else. The idea of equality found at the table of interpretation includes more than accepting other readers who might use it for their own advantage but also includes the reader’s equality with the author and the text itself. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding. His goal was to move beyond the written text and the spoken word, and into the fabric of metaphysics, methodology, and the morals of meaning.

Three Ages of Transition in Literary Interpretation

Kevin Vanhoozer uses the work of Derrida to highlight the three ages of transition in literary interpretation. The division of his work follows the critical analysis of the three ages: the age of the author, the age of the text, and the age of the reader. Each section explores the historicity of the age, the mentality of the reader regarding truth, as well as the issues that contributed to advancing a transition away from the prima facie interpretation of objective truth or the author’s meaning found in the text. As Vanhoozer looks at Derrida’s work he is asking the reader to decide whether the meaning of a text is objectively fixed by the author or by the text itself, or whether it maintains the freedom to vary from reader to reader.

Pre-Modern, Modern, and Postmodern Periods

If the three interpretational methodology transitions are broken down historically, they seem to follow the transitions of Western society through the pre-modern, modern, and postmodern periods. The pre-modern period is defined by absolute authority. The reader had limited access to the written word and any word written carried the full weight and authority of the author. The modern period ushered in the age of enlightenment and with it an explosion in education. The quest for knowledge placed an emphasis on the reader’s exegetical skills to interpret the text. The authority no longer rested with the intentions of the author but in the educated hermeneutical methodology of the reader. The 20th century ushered in postmodern era, after two world wars, Western culture began questioning all authority. The institutions of government, marriage, the church, and education all became vulnerable to the removal of objective authority. Regarding the literary interpretation of the postmodern reader Vanhoozer states a word “interprets with a no reality principle (the way it is), only a pleasure principle (the way I want it to be).” The foundational question in the theology of literary interpretation is authority. The battle over authority is critical in how a person approaches interpretation and how they determine whose interpretation is correct.

Reformation and the Battle of Interpretation

Historically, the battle of the Reformation was in part a battle of interpretation. Luther and others questioned Papal Infallibility or the Soul Inerrancy of the Pope. The reformers rejected that the Pope had interpretational inerrancy. The interpretational transition of the Reformation saw the authority move from a single point of Soul Inerrancy to the acceptance of a new idea called Soul Competency. However, as the reformers allowed the average reader access to the Bible, they would still hold the reader to the belief of determinacy in their interpretations. Everyone was welcomed to study and work to interpret the Scriptures as long as they realized that being Soul Competent meant that you could find God’s meanings in the Scriptures. It did not mean that you were Soul Inerrant, meaning that you could wrongly interpret the Scriptures.

Calvin’s goal in interpretation, was clear; “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” In contrast is Derrida’s “death of an author” which is a direct consequence of Nietzsche’s announcement of the death of God. The death of God means the death of absolute authority. The current state of cultural affairs has drawn an increasing number of biblical scholars to adopt and advocate strategies for translating the Bible, influenced by the work of Derrida. Derrida and his deconstructionist have correctly analyzed the postmodern culture and have declared victory by bracketing out orthodox Christian belief. They also believe that once a text is freed from the author, it can become a canvas on which a reader can exercise their own creativity. The death of the author was critical in moving from premodern to modern, and from modern to postmodern culture.

Spiritual Implications for Biblical Authority

What are the spiritual implications for removing the biblical author’s authority? “The answer is brief but massive: biblical authority is undone. The un-doers effectively strip the Bible of any stable meaning so that it cannot state a fact, issue a command, or make a promise.” The death of the author gave rise to the power of the words themselves. The transition is tame compared to the problems with postmodern philosophies; however, some believed that commentaries were being developed and could be used by anyone to push an agenda on the text. Richard Coggins feared that commentaries would become weapons of propaganda. Today, the church is the living consequences of these transitions and postmodern relativism has left the current culture in a legitimate crisis in biblical understanding.

DETERMINISM

Determinism means that a text has a definite meaning, one that can be qualified and defined. The next step down from determinacy is textuality, “where the autonomous text offers no more resources for limiting the play of meaning than does the strangulated voice of the anonymous author.” Even those modern scholars who helped refine interpretation theory as a science of the text could not stop the downward spiral of deconstruction. Eventually, the second pillar fell, and society experienced the death of the text and with it the possibility of literary knowledge.

POSTMODERN THINKING

Postmodern thinkers have deemed it unnecessary to investigate truths about the world, especially when it comes to epistemology. They believed “the light of reason is no longer needed for the growth of knowledge.” The ideal of objective knowledge is no longer a truth to pursue but a myth to debunk. These thinkers reject objective knowledge found in a text due to bias found in a theoretical or interpretive framework: “knowledge in the postmodern world is always contextual, always perspectival, always relative to some point of view or other.”

LOGOCENTRISM

Some postmodern thinkers like Paul Ricoeur are not as radical as Derrida in their attack on logocentrism, the catchall term used to describe Western thinkers who are preoccupied with meaning, rationality, and truth. Derrida believes that having a stable point of commonality outside of language, like reason, revelation, or even Platonic ideals, feeds the traditional view of authoritative truth. He uses the name “grammatology” for a study of writing that is no longer governed by logocentrism.

POINTS OF FAILURE

Derrida’s views create a tension, which he classified as a battle between what a text wants to say and what it is systematically constrained to say. “As a deconstructionist he is able to identify points of failure in a system, points at which it is able to feign coherence only by excluding and forgetting that which it cannot assimilate, that which is ‘other’ to it.” Derrida repeatedly finds the best way to escape problems with his belief system is to simply not recognize those issues that will not assimilate into his views. Those authoritative views like objective and absolute truth found in the Scriptures are simply deemed to live outside his interpretative community. When interpretation moves from a methodology used to understanding a text to the primary purpose of the text then all authority is stripped away and only the current relevant meaning of a closed interpretative community remains.

Use of Metaphors

The use of metaphors in ancient writings has leant to the ever-evolving creation of meaning. “It is one thing to interpret metaphors, however, and quite another to interpret metaphorically.” Derrida held that there is nothing outside the text and therefore the whole world is a metaphor. Language is a collection of signs used to promote different views about the world. He believed that the “metaphoricity is the logic of contamination and the contamination of logic.” The metaphorical indeterminacy allows a reader to choose metaphors about God and his relation to the world that best fit and promote their worldview about God.

Derrida’s deconstructionist views on reason, authoritative revelation, and objective truth all stem from his radical views about authority in general. Disillusioned with authority, he states that “reason is what serves our ethico-political interest. Behind rationality lies values (ethics) and power (politics). Deconstruction is a kind of sophistic acid that strips away the layers of rhetoric that disguise values and truths.” The goal was nothing short of incoherent relativism in a world freed from oppressive authorities.

The third age of criticism he explores the transition from textuality to contextuality. “The reader is not a canvas to be molded but an active participate in developing meaning to a text based on what the reader brings to it. Those looking to deconstruct meaning, study the effects of a reader’s social, historical, and theological bents on their personal interpretation of a text. The idea of a reader-response methodology to interpretation opened the door to criticism from many conservatives. The radical reader-response critics continue to reject the traditional role of the reader and insist that the text conform to the reading instead of the reading conforming to the text.

The battle for interpretative freedom and true meaning has deep cross-cultural implications knowing that both moderns and post-moderns are claiming the high ground in the battle for literary theory. Defending the position of the author, Vanhoozer refers to the post-modern reader’s use of a text as a ventriloquist’s dummy serving as the conduit to voice their own opinion. He recognizes that the current age of criticism is defined by egotistical entitlement that simply refuses to look to the truth found in the past but instead is committed to the unintelligible ideas of their own voice.

Stanley Fish has declared, “The authorizing agency of interpretational authority is not the author, the text, or even the reader, but the interpretative community.” The worldview of the crowd dictates the range of what is or is not an acceptable interpretation of a text. A conservative might say, I believe it means X, (X being the traditional, authoritative interpretation), but if the culture is bent towards a different liberal view, then having the view of X is outside the range of an acceptable interpretation of the text. The implications of Fish’s conclusion is that truth is demoted from its prior status as timeless and absolute to what the mob perceives is good and acceptable in this moment. Truth, metaphysically, morally, and meaning simply becomes a label we assign to our beliefs. As along as a reader’s beliefs fit inside the acceptable worldview of the interpretative community, then any interpretation that seem right to the interpretative community at the moment or given to advance their beliefs is deemed as good and true.

Derrida’s Deconstructionism

Derrida’s deconstructionism’s underlying purpose is promoting and supporting an inconsistent ideology with the goal of removing institutional authority. As the chart shows the interpretative plurality speaks about approaching a text with different interpretative methods. The idea is that it might take multiple interpretative approaches to get a thick description of meaning out of a text. In contrast, hermeneutical pluralism maintains conflicting interpretations are viewed as equally valid. The deconstructionist represents a small, but growing, number of people who truly believe that a determinate meaning cannot be known from a text. When asked whether a determinate meaning can be determined, the majority of people think yes, even if they will not say so publicly. The power of their interpretive community and the perceived oppression by traditional institutions rallies the average reader to forsake logic and follow an inconsistent ideology. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding.

Vanhoozer has observed how the work of orality in Rabbinical Sages to create independent and authoritative discourse outside the historical norms shows great similarities to Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionism: “Derrida attends only to the signifiers, not the signified.” In other words, like the rabbis, Derrida is focused on someone’s speaking and has no concern for what they are saying. The social implications of Derrida’s deconstructionism can be seen in the plurality of Israel’s monotheistic culture. Thus, “The Alexandrian Therapeutae, the Yakhad of Qumran, the Pharisees, and the primitive Jesus-communities, all appear to have been conversionist associations formed to pursue a collective transformative discipline under the guidance of persuasive teachers.” Vanhoozer promotes critical realism as a middle position between letterism (epistemological absolutism) and deconstructionism (epistemological relativism).

Pre-Deconstructionism: The Next Step?

Could Pre-Deconstructionism be the next step after post-modernism? Premodern was bound by authoritative religions, modernism is bound by scholastic academia, postmodern is bound by the individual, and pre-deconstructionism is bound by the interpretative community. Interpretative Communities could be the next phase of cultural evolution, returning words to premodern authoritative positions, this time not held by the church but multiplied by mobs of interpretative communities.

These Viral Pro-Choice Memes Miss the Point and Fail the Test of Logic

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

With the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion potentially pointing to Roe v. Wade being overturned, social media is on fire with pro-choice advocates sharing memes intended to portray abortion “rights” as necessary, important, and even morally good.

For those of us who believe intentionally killing preborn human beings is murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life), it’s absolutely heartbreaking to see so many people passionately advocating for the right to commit such an act. In response, many Christians have taken to private social media groups to share examples of pro-choice memes and discuss how best to respond.

While it’s not necessary to respond to every post you come across (there aren’t enough hours in the day!), I’m heartened to see so many Christians wanting to address what they’re seeing. That said, I’ve noticed that many people’s responses are missing the key point of the debate as much as the memes themselves are.

As such, I wanted to write this article to respond to several viral pro-choice memes and show how to maintain focus on the core issue without getting pulled into irrelevant other subjects. But first, a critical distinction must be understood.

Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings

Imagine that you come across someone posting the following on social media: “I’m an atheist. I do not believe anything exists beyond the natural world, and therefore I do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Nothing is morally right or wrong, so I’m pro-choice because I believe there’s nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn baby.”

In this case, the pro-choice advocate is merely being consistent within their own naturalistic worldview. They believe morality is only a matter of opinion, given their view of the nature of the universe. If a Christian is pro-life as a logical outworking of their biblical worldview and an atheist is pro-choice as a logical outworking of their naturalistic worldview, the ensuing conversation isn’t so much about abortion as it is about their respective underlying worldview assumptions.

Worldview-level discussions about the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the corresponding rights (or lack of rights) held by preborn humans certainly transpire in some circles. And these worldview-level questions are ultimately what the debate comes down to.

But this is rarely the level of conversation floating to the top of social media.

In fact, I’ve seen virtually no pro-choice social media posts addressing these questions in popular discourse. Rather, emotion-driven memes carry the day—memes that are nearly always logically fallacious red herrings. In other words, they distract from the real issue with points completely irrelevant to the core (worldview) question at hand:

Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

That’s it. That’s what the debate comes down to.

For clarity, the logic behind the answer for Christians with a biblical worldview is as follows:

It’s morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

With this in mind, let’s look at brief responses to eight of the most popular pro-choice memes circulating right now to see how to highlight the red herring and point back to the real issue. As we’ll see, they all fail to address the core question: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).

Social media example:

If intentionally killing a preborn baby is morally wrong, whatever a person does or does not do to support a child and/or their parents does not change the morality of the action itself.

Virtually everyone, for example, would agree that rape is morally wrong. If a person opposed to rape does absolutely nothing for rape victims, we still acknowledge that their opposition to rape is the morally correct position to hold. Logically speaking, the morality of an action must be evaluated on its own basis. The core question remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

[Avoid the trap: Don’t try to prove your motivations in response to the wording “if it was about babies…” If someone wants to question your motivations, they’re unlikely to be convinced otherwise by your words. The morality of abortion has nothing to do with any individual’s motivation for holding a given position. Also, don’t start breaking down each good we should supposedly provide (formula, diapers, etc.) to show why it’s unnecessary, unfeasible, or already sufficiently provided. All you’re doing is playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.

Social media example:

This is logically quite similar to the first meme, but with a twist that often confuses people: equivocation on the term “pro-life” (equivocation is the use of ambiguous language—typically using the same word with two different meanings).

Pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate, means that a person is opposed to abortion. Here the writer wants to make the political point that if you really care about “life,” you’ll agree with a bundle of other positions (ones they assume to be the best life-sustaining positions). But Roe v. Wade is not about a bundle of issues related to human life. This is a question of one specific human life issue.

Again, intentionally killing preborn babies is either morally wrong or it’s not. Whether someone takes a morally right or wrong position on any other issue is irrelevant to whether they’ve taken a morally right or wrong position on abortion.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t start trying to defend that you really are pro “all life,” but that being pro “all life” doesn’t translate into supporting each of the particular positions listed. If you start trying to prove your pro “all life” credentials by getting into detailed discussions on all these other issues, you’re simply playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.

Social media example:

The logic here is similar to that of the first two memes, but I wanted to include it because this one is especially popular, and it has a slightly different framing: It’s a “Christian” pastor presumably chastising fellow Christians for only caring about who is easiest to advocate for. Non-Christians of course like this because the accusation is coming from one of “our own.”

But regardless of who it’s coming from and regardless of how relatively easy or uneasy it is to advocate for any particular group, the morality of actions against that group remains the same.

That’s it. Even if advocating for the preborn were the easiest thing on earth relative to advocating for other groups, it doesn’t change whether intentionally killing those babies is morally wrong or not. If we’re talking about abortion laws, that’s the question that matters.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get caught up in showing that this pastor is progressive and doesn’t hold a biblical view. That’s true, but the source of the comment is irrelevant. Also avoid debating how easy or uneasy it is to advocate for different groups—as I’ve shown here, that too is irrelevant.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.

Social media example:

The basic logic here is that it’s better to kill a preborn human than to allow that human to be born into bad circumstances, ranging from poverty to abuse. But many humans live in and always have lived in bad—often terrible—circumstances regardless of whether their parents wanted them. The pro-choice advocate would almost certainly not say that we should kill every human who lives in or will live in a set of circumstances deemed to be insufficiently pleasant. Imagine the outrage if our society started pulling toddlers out of the homes of poor families to kill them! The only difference between that scenario and the one in the meme is that the child is already born.

Again, it’s either morally wrong or it’s not to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Whether a given human’s parents want to or are able to raise that human according to certain standards has nothing to do with whether killing them is right or wrong. We wouldn’t apply that logic to humans who are already born; there’s no logical reason to apply it before birth either.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t enter into debate about how good a child’s life can be even in bad circumstances. The morality of abortion doesn’t depend on how good or bad a child’s life turns out to be. That’s another red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

This idea comes in many different meme forms, but the basic logic is that men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body because men can’t get pregnant. (As an aside, I’m not sure how long this argument can go unchecked today given that trans activists claim trans men–biological women–can be pregnant. Will feminists declare that there really are differences between trans men and biological men and allow trans men alone to speak, given their reproductive capabilities? Only time will tell.)

Once again, this avoids the question of the morality of abortion with an emotional red herring. Our society has laws against murder because we’ve collectively agreed that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; our laws unashamedly restrain the freedom of citizens to kill one another. It’s no more “controlling,” therefore, to have restrictions on what would-be murderers do with their bodies to kill others than it is to have restrictions on what pregnant women do with their bodies to kill others. The only relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, and the morality of an action doesn’t depend on the gender of who makes the law. (As many people have pointed out, it was an all-male Supreme Court that passed Roe v. Wade in the first place, so by this logic, pro-choice people should reject that court decision as well.)

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get distracted by the claim that “conservative Christianity” is about controlling bodies. That’s just a jab at Christians. Focus on the “my body, my choice” logic, which quickly fails for the above reasons.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

The logic here is identical to that of the last meme except it takes out the gender-specific language. Rather than “men have no right to tell women what to do with their body,” it’s “no one has a right to tell women what to do with their body.” Once again, we have all kinds of laws in society that restrict the use of one’s body to intentionally hurt or kill other humans. Abortion laws are not unique in telling someone what they can or can’t do with their body when it comes to other human lives.

The relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, not whether society is in a place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. We already do that in all kinds of ways.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.

Social media example:

I’m always shocked that someone would make this argument, but it always comes up, so let’s look at the logic: We should keep the intentional killing of preborn human beings legal because if we don’t, certain racial and economic groups will be better able to find illegal ways to kill babies than others. In other words, poor people and people of color won’t have equal opportunity to kill.

We simply do not apply this kind of thinking in other cases—we don’t make actions legal because some groups of people are better able to skirt the law! If we did that, we’d probably have no laws at all. As a society, we work to provide equal opportunity for good not for bad.

The question, therefore, remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being? If it is, there’s no need to give people equal opportunity to do what’s wrong.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t go down the rabbit hole of discussing which groups of people do or do not need abortion “access”—no one needs access to a moral wrong.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.

Social media example (this is a copy and paste post that is viral around Facebook):

I’m not pro-murdering babies.

I’m pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.

I’m pro-Christina who doesn’t want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.

I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child.

I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I’m pro-life.

Their lives.

Women’s lives.

You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

I’ve saved this one for last because it’s like a capstone example for this article. I’ve seen so many Christians ask how to respond to this post, presumably because it looks so overwhelming. There are a dozen different types of cases given here, and the intent is clearly to confront the reader with too much to respond to. The writer wants to show that there are just too many difficult circumstances leading to a woman’s desire for abortion, so we shouldn’t make blanket restrictions; too many bad things exist that make abortion access necessary.

While the logical problems could be pointed out with each individual case (and I’ve seen people do that well), I think this is more simply and effectively dealt with by sticking with the high level logic the post is using: If difficult circumstances result in or from a human life being created, a woman needs the right to kill that preborn baby. To see the logical problem, apply that thinking to a human being already born…if difficult circumstances lead to one human wanting to kill another human, should we legalize that murder due to their difficult circumstances? As with an earlier meme, we don’t apply that logic in such cases. There’s no reason to apply it to the preborn either.

As one other logic point, to say that you’re not “pro-murdering babies” but are pro-women who want to be able to is a fallacy called distinction without difference. In other words, if you’re for women being able to kill a preborn baby, you’re “pro-(the ability to) murder babies.” Drawing a cursory distinction via word choice does not change the central issue of whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being.

[Avoid the trap: There are certainly nuances to some of the cases listed here that could warrant further points. For example, in the case of Vanessa, the baby has already died; that’s not about abortion at all. However, most people posting this aren’t looking to get into conversation about the details. Their whole point is that there are too many considerations that warrant conversation, so we should leave the choice to women. In general, I’d recommend avoiding the trap of replying to each case and stick with the overall points of logic I described here.]

Christians are called to speak truth, but sometimes before we can even speak truth about the sanctity of life, we need to help people see the flawed logic of popular claims. Once we sweep away logical errors so we can clearly see the core question (Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?), we of course need to be prepared to make the case for life. For help in doing so, I highly recommend Scott Klusendorf’s book The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.

Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?

Apologetics for Parents, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The biggest obstacle to most apologetics efforts is apathy. While there are indeed some ardent atheists, usually the ones who take the time to write a response to posts like these, by and large the response of the average skeptic is to figuratively throw up their hands. They usually don’t take the time to research and consider a specific truth claim that is being made, or to counter some argument with evidence to show that an argument is false or mistaken. Nor do they try to convince you that their worldview is in fact true. Instead, most skeptics I’ve dealt with have developed a comfort level regarding the “unknowability” of ultimate things. They often argue that the fact that people disagree about such things – that a range of people have differing views on the subject- is itself evidence that no one can ever know whether there is a God, what He is about, or most importantly, what He may want of us. And so, they often don’t bother to try to investigate these things for themselves.

But if the Christian worldview is correct, such apathy is itself hazardous to one’s spiritual health. Recently, I tried to make this case in a conversation with a skeptic. It went something like this:

“Let’s say this was 70 years ago, and when I saw you, you were chain smoking cigarettes with your children always nearby. I know where medical science is headed, so I tell you that you are hurting yourself, and your kids. You respond that no one can really know such things; after all, you can point to doctors who advertise cigarettes and smoke them themselves, and you feel fine when you smoke. I point to other doctors who think that it’s really bad for you. You respond, ‘See, it’s a tie, so stop bothering me. Each person believes what they were raised to believe, or what they want to believe.”

“Do you see,” I asked, “that the conflict between the doctors should not lead you to conclude that neither is right, or that the answer is not knowable? As a friend, should I keep trying to bring you back to the truth about cigarettes, or should I let you persist in believing something that is, in the end, hurting you and your loved ones?”

My friend’s response was not unexpected. It went like this:

“Have you ever noticed how so many things are bad or wrong only at certain points in a cycle? Eat eggs, don’t eat eggs; give your kids soy, soy is bad; babies should sleep on their backs, no their stomachs, no their sides, no their backs etc., etc. When my daughter was born I would put her on her back to sleep and when I left the room my mother would put her on her side and when my mother left the room my grandmother would put her on her stomach. Over time the answer comes full circle. Why go around and around with it? What I am saying is not just throw up your hands and quit; what I am saying is that I do what feels right to me and that is the best I can do. Sometimes I listen to friends (and doctors) and sometimes I don’t. I think the ‘answer’ to many of these things is unknowable.”

Fair enough. Some things are unknowable, and for some things, it doesn’t really matter. But that of course is the point of being thoughtful: deciding which is which. So, I conceded that for some things, the right answer might be “it doesn’t matter.” For example, a child might be equally safe on her side or her back. Eggs or soy might be good for you or bad, depending on your health and how much you eat.

But for other things – like smoking – it will never “come back around.” Science will never say that smoking is good. It might say that it won’t necessarily kill you, but not that it will “balance your humours” like they said 200 years ago.”

“This analogy to smoking,” I continued, “is just one of many possible examples of the way consequences are built into the nature of reality. Take another example: if I embark upon a life of crime or drug addiction, I will eventually reap what I sow and the place I find myself might not be pleasant. We have the ability to foresee possible consequences through the use of our minds and imaginations. Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that this life will end at some point and to give some thought to what may await? Take my drugs example one step further – since you’re young and healthy, you might be able to abuse drugs for quite some time without being harmed. You might presently be indifferent to whether using drugs is a good or bad idea. But how smart a move would it be for you to say that you really don’t care what effect it will have on you in twenty years? Looking down the road to the consequence of our choices is something we all really need to do.”

“So,” I concluded, “the trick is, which is this? Are questions of eternal life like laying a child on her side, or are they more like smoking with my kids in the room or abusing drugs? I hope you see the answer matters. If you were smoking ten hours a day with your kids present, you would be harming them. Getting the right answer on that would matter. Getting the right answer on your relationship with God also matters, both to you and to the people you influence.”

I don’t think I persuaded her. As with smoking, not everyone bothers to read the warning label.

So You Left the New Age… Now What? Five Helpful Tips

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

We each go through unique difficulties whenever we leave the New Age.

Whenever I left the New Age, it was incredibly lonely. I felt like nobody understood what I had just gone through. At the time, it felt like no Christian around me understood what the New Age really was, and to be honest, I was somewhat embarrassed that I had fallen into such beliefs, even after going to church for so many years. I didn’t even understand what I believed was New Age. I had to sift through the theological mud. I also did a Pendulum swing where I just wanted to point out what was wrong with everybody’s beliefs, and I went through a brief phase where basically everything was “New Age,” and there was a demon under every rock. I had trouble trusting again and wasn’t sure how to get my footing. But I did. Scripture says that he gives wisdom to those who ask, and he rewards those who earnestly seek him. I want to share five helpful tips for those who have just left the New Age.

# 1.) Read Your Bible.

This sounds simple. But I think of the character of Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress. He poured over the pages, and this fed his thirsty soul. Just the simple act of reading through the Gospels has been life-changing for so many people coming out of the New Age. This alone has undone so much theological damage done by the false beliefs of the New Age. Many people sometimes have trouble understanding the Bible at first. The simplest thing I’m going to tell you about that? Read it anyway. This is not just any book, but a spiritual book guided by the Holy Spirit, by God Himself to give to humanity. It’s applicable to all history. It’s perfectly normal not to understand everything in the Bible completely, but this is by far the greatest resource you have available to you when it comes to knowing who God is and basic Christian teachings.

# 2.) Pray and Spend Time with God.

This is arguably just as important as reading your Bible. Again, this sounds simple, but scripture is very clear that whenever we seek out God and draw close to Him, he draws close to us. He reveals Himself through his Word and prayer. These two things together are very powerful when it comes to giving you direction. When you pray, be very intentional about this. Purposely make time to spend throughout your day talking to God. Go in the closet if you need to and close the door and just spend time with, pray to, and worship Him. Also, keep in mind that just because you don’t feel God doesn’t mean he doesn’t hear you or isn’t there listening to you. The New Age is an extremely feelings-oriented belief system, and in many ways, our truth came surrounded by what we felt and where our emotions led. It can be a paradigm shift going into knowing God, but maybe not feeling Him all the time. What is also important for people to realize is that God is personal and is the source of wisdom and truth. For many people coming out of the New Age, knowing there is one place to go for truth and wisdom is very important because the New Age has many sources of truth. There’s a reason why Jesus says that He’s the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

# 3.) Find a Theologically Sound Church.

This is arguably the biggest challenge for some people. It’s a tall order for someone who doesn’t know what that looks like or might have had a negative church experience. Here are some tips. First, and this might be the most obvious, but is this church in line with what the Bible teaches? Is this church teaching sound doctrine? Is this church teaching what Christianity has taught and believed for the last 2000 years? You need to make sure that they’re solid on who Jesus is, the attributes of God, which is just a fancy way of understanding God’s complete character as revealed in Scripture, a Biblical understanding of the Trinity, heaven, and hell, the reliability of the Bible, and salvation, which again are all found very clearly within scripture. There’s a reason why number 1 is so crucial. The more that you read your Bible, the more you’ll be able to spot when things are off from the pulpit of any church. If the Pastor is just spouting off out-of-context life application principles from scripture like a walking talking self-help book with fancy gelled hair, a nice- and probably very expensive- polo shirt, and skinny jeans? Then that’s a big fat red flag, my friend. This is huge, but look out for if they downplay scripture reading and study and put experience and feelings first. Is inviting people to church and making it look attractive the focal point, or is discipleship and teaching sound theology? Do they resemble a lot of the New Age beliefs you just rejected? Are the Bible and Jesus alone sufficient? Is Scripture just used as an accessory for them, or is it the actual foundation for their faith? Is it the green beans your Mom has to put on the plate, or is it the real meat and potatoes? And yes— you do need to be around other believers. In my opinion, saying you’re a “lone sheep” and don’t think you need to meet regularly with other believers isn’t wise or spiritually mature. It can create unhealthy echo chambers.

# 4.) Beware of the ‘Pendulum Problem.’

Be careful about not becoming so extreme in your beliefs when coming out of the New Age. I have observed a constant correlation that there’s almost a sense of paranoia of deception, and it’s hard to shake. Sometimes “paranoia” can be confused with “discernment.” People don’t want to be deceived again, so they come out arms swinging-guns blazing-hersey-hunters at everything and everyone that resembles the New Age. I think it’s essential for us to remember the grace that we were given when we were new believers and remember what it was like to be in the New Age. Some people have shared with me that they experience a sort of grief when they come out of the New Age because it feels like they’ve been duped. When your life changes drastically, we sometimes need to mourn what we’ve gone through, even if it was bad for us. I know I did. But it wasn’t because I missed what I believed in. It was mostly because I felt like I was so so confident in what I had believed, and it was a total shock to my pride. So in this mind frame, people can go through many changes. It would be wise to be aware of this and not over-condemn everything. Picking and choosing our battles can be a good start. It takes study of scripture, discipleship, maturity, prayer, time, and wisdom to do this.

# 5.) Remove Unhealthy Temptations.

Riding on the coattails of number four, I’m not saying to go to the extreme and get rid of everything in your house that reminds you of the New Age or your beliefs, but it is very wise to get rid of books or items that you might have owned that might be a source of temptation for you or could cause you or others to stumble. This would include throwing out all New Age clothing, books, idols, tools of the occult, and things like that. Also, sometimes this can mean distancing yourself from people that might be toxic. It can be hard to be around people heavily involved in the very lifestyle you’re trying to leave. I had a friend describe this along the lines of someone who perhaps has an addiction or experienced abuse that to overcome it, they had to rid their lives of all influence of that temptation or environment. In a way, the same is true for those fresh out of the New Age. There’s a reason why we see this same thing in Scripture. Throughout the Old Testament, God told the Israelites to pull down and destroy idols. There were many reasons for this, but He compared it to Spiritual adultery. For some people who leave the New age, it’s sometimes surprising that they want to keep a foot in the New Age and a foot in Christianity. We even see this in some churches! For those who might want to hold on to some New Age beliefs and mix it with their Christian beliefs, let me ask you this: if you were married to someone, would you find it okay if they were to wear a wedding ring from another person along with the wedding ring from you? This would be an offense to you, just like it would be an offense to God. We can’t mix New Age with Christianity or claim that the New Age can somehow be redeemed for the church. You can’t serve two masters.

When Hollywood gets God and virtue right

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek

Imagine if there were a fun way to raise your kid’s interest in God while imparting some of the most important virtues every Christian parent wants their children to learn. There is. You can use an unlikely source that will help you get your point across without you sounding all “preachy.”

Pollster George Barna found that young people get their theology more from movies than the pulpit. So why not use the power of Hollywood to give them good theology where you can? Stories inspire and instruct more vividly than commands, which is one reason why Jesus not only gave commands but also told stories.

Yes, I know. Unlike Jesus, Hollywood’s stories often glorify much that is immoral. But Hollywood’s most successful movies often tell inspiring stories of sacrifice that borrow from the greatest story ever told. These movies also provide biblical life lessons, even movies not made by believers.

Here are a few kid-friendly examples.

If you want your kids to have the courage to stand for the truth even when the world is against them, watch any movie with Captain America. Steve Rogers (a.ka. Captain America) is the poster child for what we look for in a hero. He’s the leader of the Avengers despite clearly being outclassed in power by most of the other heroes on the team. His most important trait is that he is morally incorruptible — a trait he had even when he was just a scrawny kid who was too small to enlist in the Army in World War II. Once his mind is made up about what the right thing to do is, nothing will stop him. The guy is even willing to fight the evil supervillain Thanos and his entire army in Avengers: Endgame BY HIMSELF.

If you have kids who tend to impulsively follow their hearts, look at the moral progression of Iron Man. He starts off as a selfish playboy but is transformed into a hero who eventually sacrifices himself to save the world. Tony’s transformation requires him to stop impulsively following his heart, as the culture promotes, and to start guarding his heart as the Bible commands (Pr. 4:23). This is beautifully illustrated by the device implanted in Tony’s chest that is literally guarding his heart from encroaching shrapnel. When Tony guards his heart from distractions and his own selfish desires, he can focus on what’s really important — the responsibilities he has to others.

If your child isn’t the most popular or strongest kid in school, watch The Lord of the Rings. The heroes of Tolkien’s Fantasy Masterpiece are those who are weakest physically but the strongest morally. Sam and Frodo are three-foot hobbits who are dwarfed by everyone else. But weakness turns out to be a strength for them because it gives them the humility to ask for help. Tolkien is highlighting the biblical truth that when you are weak you are strong because when you are weak you rely on God for help (2 Cor. 12:10). Of course, Tolkien intended for The Lord of the Rings series to present a Christian worldview — including the fact that there is a God who often works behind the scenes — so watching the series will be rich theologically and morally in many other ways as well.

If you want your kids to see the beauty of grace, watch Wonder Woman. In her first feature-length movie, Wonder Woman spares an evil war criminal who is kneeling in repentance even though she is being egged on to kill this war criminal by her opponent Ares who wants to kill everyone because he thinks human beings do too much evil. Ares screams at Wonder Woman that people “don’t deserve your protection!”

But Wonder Woman responds, “It’s not about deserve; it’s about what you believe. And I believe in love.”

That reflects what God believes and did for us. God loves so much that He sent His only son to take our punishment so when we believe in Jesus we will not get what we deserve — we will not get paid back for the evil we’ve done — we will get grace, love, and eternal life.

It’s not just the movie franchises of Captain America, Iron Man, The Lord of the Rings, and Wonder Womanthat can help parents reinforce Christian truths and virtues. So do other franchises such as Star Wars, Superman,Batman,andothersas we show in our new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

Your kids are probably watching those movies anyway (if not, they are hearing about them from their friends or online). So why not use the aspects of these films that convey truth and virtue to reinforce those things in your kids? Knowing these movies will also give them launch points to direct their friends toward Christ. Knowing them can help you do the same with your friends. And the best thing about all of this is that having movie night is often a lot more fun and effective than getting all “preachy.”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Beyond the Bathroom

Women Strike Back

Reality Bites

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is a ‘Right’?

Why Do Humans Have Rights?

What are the Implications for Modern Moral Outrage?

One Last Thought

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The first step is to seek joy from God.

The second step is to acknowledge and cherish the eternal blessings you have as a child of God:

The third step is bringing balance into your life.

The fourth step involves setting boundaries with certain people who suck the joy out of you.

The fifth step is to enjoy life today!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jacques Derrida and the Postmodern Revolution

Three Ages of Transition in Literary Interpretation

Pre-Modern, Modern, and Postmodern Periods

Reformation and the Battle of Interpretation

Spiritual Implications for Biblical Authority

DETERMINISM

POSTMODERN THINKING

LOGOCENTRISM

POINTS OF FAILURE

Use of Metaphors

Derrida’s Deconstructionism

Pre-Deconstructionism: The Next Step?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

# 1.) Read Your Bible.

# 2.) Pray and Spend Time with God.

# 3.) Find a Theologically Sound Church.

# 4.) Beware of the ‘Pendulum Problem.’

# 5.) Remove Unhealthy Temptations.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: