As a parent or student it will help you to know that in many cases your secular professors have a strategy. They have a goal. A strategy is the big-picture plan to win or achieve that goal. Tactics are the step-by-step methods used to carry it out. I’ve told you before that you can see their goal by how they live their own lives. But now let’s look at their classroom tactics.
If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you need to understand the tactics of the secular professor. For many of them, “winning” means leading students to adopt a radical leftist ideology—either by outright agreement or by slow, subtle influence. Agreement isn’t always demanded immediately. Sometimes, all they want is your gradual surrender of confidence in anything else. The big win, however, is final deconversion from Christianity and acceptance of something like the LGBTQ+ “safe zone” philosophy pushed at ASU.
Undermining Christianity: The Real Strategy
The strategy of many secular professors is simple: undermine Christianity. Why? Because Christianity remains the major roadblock to their radical leftist ideology. Without that, their goal is in sight.
If you had to guess a student’s religion, statistically, you’d guess Christian and be right more often than not. Christianity remains the default framework for morality, identity, and truth for many students, even if only in fragments. Christian teaching is the main roadblock to the Marxism at the core of the radical left.
And that’s a problem—for them.
The teachings of Christianity are fundamentally incompatible with the radical left’s view of sex, gender, truth, power, and the good life. So, it’s not just about “dialogue” or “working together.” Before they can win a student to their worldview, they must first destabilize the student’s confidence in Christianity. Undermine the foundation, and the rest of the structure will fall. That’s the strategy. Their tactics follow.
How the Strategy Is Carried Out: Tactics You Should Know
This strategy to undermine Christianity is carried out through many identifiable tactics. For parents and students, it’s worth learning these—not only to recognize what’s happening, but also to see how poorly equipped many of these professors are for the intellectual life they claim to lead. Scripture puts it plainly: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). What we’re witnessing in many classrooms today is a real-time application of that verse. Let’s examine a few of their most common tactics. We’ll begin with three—but the list, sadly, is always growing.
Tactic #1: Undermine the Word of God
The first and most foundational tactic is to undermine the authority of Scripture. This can take the form of a direct assault—mocking the Bible as outdated, oppressive, or absurd—or a more subtle approach: cherry-picking verses to support radical leftist ideology.
For example, I have a colleague—openly anti-Christian—who claims that Matthew 25:40 (“Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me”) is the best verse in the Bible. Why? Because she believes it proves her progressive social philosophy. On her reading, all you have to do is advocate for so-called sexual minorities, and you’re doing exactly what Jesus said. No need for sound doctrine. No need to understand the whole Bible. Just grab a single verse and weaponize it. Incidentally, it is worth noting that in this specific verse, Jesus is speaking about believers.
But that’s only half the tactic. The next step is to accuse actual Christians of not living up to the verse. She’ll claim that conservative Christians don’t care for the poor or marginalized—never mind the fact (which students rarely hear) that conservative Christians out-give atheist professors by a staggering margin when it comes to charity, adoption, missions, disaster relief, and practical acts of compassion.
Still, students don’t know that. So the professor paints a picture: the Bible is on her side, and Christians are hypocrites who don’t live up to it.
You’ll notice she never mentions John 6, where Jesus rebukes the crowd for following Him only to get bread, rather than the Bread of Life. She’s not interested in the full counsel of God—only the verses that can be twisted to serve her ideological agenda.
There are other versions of this tactic. One common move is to deny that the Bible even teaches that homosexuality is a sin. “That’s just in Leviticus,” they’ll say, “and no Christian keeps that anymore.”
I call this the “Did God really say?” tactic. Just like the serpent in the garden, the secular professor begins by sowing doubt: Did God really say that?
Did He really say that homosexuality is a sin?
Did He really define male and female?
Did He really establish the moral order we find in Scripture?
If they can get the student to doubt the clarity, authority, or consistency of God’s Word, they’ve won the first battle.
Tactic #2: Vilify Christianity
The second tactic is to vilify Christianity—to paint it not as the source of civilization’s greatest moral and social advances, but as the root of all historical evil. This is straight out of the classical Marxist playbook, so anyone familiar with the last 150 years of ideology should see it coming a mile away.
Unfortunately, most parents assume we’ve moved past this kind of propaganda. And most students, born long after the fall of the USSR, have never heard a rebuttal. So here’s what they’ll be told:
Christianity invented slavery.
Christianity promoted poverty.
Christians fought to keep people oppressed.
Of course, if you dig long enough, you can always find someone—somewhere—who called themselves a Christian and said something foolish or sinful. That’s not hard. But that’s not the [larger] truth. The truth is this: Christianity gave birth to orphanages, hospitals, and universities. It introduced the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and the foundation for economic growth and human rights. Christianity gave entire nations the hope of a better future in this life—and the next.
You won’t hear that in most classrooms. Instead, students will be told that Christianity supported slavery. But the historical reality is that slavery was universal in the ancient world. Christianity challenged and ultimately abolished it in Christianized nations—while it still exists today in non-Christian societies.
Why do professors hide this? Because the tactic is designed to make students (specifically white male Christian students) ashamed of their own heritage, their faith, and their families. That shame softens them. Once a student is ashamed of Christianity, they can be more easily reprogrammed and brainwashed. The Marxists knew this. And today’s professors are still using the same tactic with unnerving skill.
Tactic #3: Teach That It Doesn’t Matter Either Way
This tactic is all about misdirection. Unlike the first two, which confront Christianity directly, this one tries to bypass it entirely. The professor simply avoids mentioning the Bible at all. Why? Because attacking it outright might prompt a student to open it—and then the risk is that the student might actually be convinced by its truth. So, instead, the tactic is silence.
The professor communicates—both directly and indirectly—that the student can live a good, meaningful, moral life without ever knowing what the Bible says. If Scripture does come up, it’s brushed aside with a casual, dismissive remark: “Oh, the Bible? Sure, there are a few good things in there—for people who like that sort of thing.”
The message is clear: the Bible is irrelevant.
Not dangerous. Not sacred. Just… beside the point.
Outdated. Unnecessary. Background noise.
This is misdirection at its finest—because it leaves the student disarmed. There’s no battle to fight if the battlefield itself is ignored. The professor shifts the student’s focus to career, activism, self-expression—anything but divine truth. And over time, the student begins to believe the lie that neutrality is possible, and that the big questions of life—truth, meaning, morality, destiny—can be answered without reference to God. But that is not neutrality. That’s secularism in disguise.
Spot the Tactic: A Challenge for Students
Recognizing these tactics is the first step to seeing how certain professors use their class time—not to educate—but to advance a strategy of deconverting Christian students. In fact, you might even turn it into a bit of a game. Challenge your friends:
- Who can spot the most tactics in a single class session?
- Whose course schedule has the most ideologically driven professors?
- Who can most clearly connect the tactics to the broader strategy?
Keep score. Compare notes. And when you’re ready, send me your tallies—I’ll make sure they’re seen by those with oversight at the university. Because let’s be clear: taxpayers aren’t funding this nonsense.[1] And it certainly doesn’t qualify as “education.”
References:
[1] [Editor’s note: At least, taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund any anti-religious bigotry or anti-Christian indoctrination or deconversion tactics.]
Recommended Resources:
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download)
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
Does the Bible Support a Just War?
PodcastJesus said to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, and to pray for those who persecute you. But does that mean we can never use force under any circumstances? In this post Memorial Day episode, Frank explores what the Bible says about protecting ourselves and others from evil. With insights from Scripture and history, Frank examines real-world examples of Just War and explains why, in a fallen world, force is sometimes not only permissible, but necessary. Tune in as he answers questions like:
Freedom is never free. Don’t miss this Gospel-centered reflection on self-defense and warfare as we honor those who sacrificed their lives in service to our country.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Jesus and the Case for War
Charlie Kirk Takes Down Extremely Bouncy Cambridge Student
31 Nobel Prize Quotes That Challenge the ‘Faith vs. Science’ Myth – Smart Faith
2. Does God Exist?You have seen it on social media or even books. Someone gambling his head that faith impedes the progression of science. Faith, they say, is believing something without evidence or in spite of, and science relies on evidence to reach at truth. This gives the false impression that the majority of scientist are atheist, or at least non theist. It’s even considered conventional wisdom for many (maybe you thought it too).
But in reality… this is just plain doodoo.
Faith vs. Science?
First, because it starts with a false definition of faith like the one mentioned above. Pistis, the Greek word for faith, means trust and is the word used in the Bible. Trust cannot be conceived without reasonable justification. The biblical faith doesn’t shy away from doubt. Doubt and faith aren’t mutually exclusive.
Second, if you start with scientism or naturalism as your worldview, by default you will reject any argument or evidence that points to the existence of the supernatural.[1] There is no objectivity there. It’s just closed minded.
Third, this is not just factually wrong. The opposite is factually true.
Pie Chart distributing the religion of nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000.
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners.png
Before We Proceed
Before getting into the cognitive-dissonance-inducing quotes, let me make some caveats.
The list will be divided by fields for easy search with their respective sources. The experts range from different nationalities and times with no specific order. This list only composes the fields of chemistry, physics and medicine. Literature, economics and peace are not included. Without further ado, enjoy the quotes.
Chemistry
— Richard Smalley. Chemist.
— Nobel Prize: For the discovery of fullerenes.
— Source: Remarks by Richard Smalley at 2005 Alumni Banquet, Hope College.
— John B. Goodenough. Materials scientist, a solid-state physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For the development of lithium-ion batteries
— Source: Transcript of an interview with John B. Goodenough.
— Dereck Barton. Organic chemist.
— Nobel Prize: For his contribution to the development of the conformational analysis as an essential part of organic chemistry.
— Source: Barton, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens, 144.
— Christian Anfinsen. Biochemist.
— Nobel Prize: For his work on ribonuclease, especially concerning the connection between the amino acid sequence and the biologically active conformation.
— Source: Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139.
— Walter Kohn. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For his work on the development of the density functional theory.
— Source: Reflections of a Physicist after an Encounter with the Vatican and Pope John Paul II (April 20, 2001, University of California, Santa Barbara)
Physics
— Robert A. Millikan. Experimental physicist.
— Nobel prize: for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect.
— Source: Autobiography (1950). Chapter 21: “The Two Supreme Elements in Human Progress”. p 279.
— Carlo Rubbia. Physicist and director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
— Nobel Prize: For work leading to the discovery of the W and Z particles at CERN.
— Source: C. Rubbia, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 1993.
— Charles H. Townes. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics.
— Source: “Logic and Uncertainties in Science and Religion,” in Science and the Future of Mankind: Science for Man and Man for Science, pp. 296–309.
— Joseph John Thomson. Physicist
— Nobel Prize: For the discovery of the electron.
— Source: Thomson 1909, Nature, vol. 81, p. 257
— Arno Penzias. Physics.
— Nobel Prize: For the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which substantiated Big Bang theory.
— Source: Penzias, as cited in ‘The God I Believe in’, Joshua O. Haberman editor, New York, Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994, 184
—Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: for his pioneering work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles
— Source: V. J. McBrierty (2003): Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton, The Irish Scientist, 1903–1995, Trinity College Dublin Press.
—Victor Franz Hess. Physicist
— Nobel Prize: For the discovery of cosmic rays.
— Source: The American Weekly. “My Faith”. November 3, 1946.
—Michael Faraday. Scientist.
— Nobel Prize: For establishing the existence of the magnetic field, discovered electrolysis, diamagnetism, electromagnetic induction and benzene.
— Source: Seeger, Raymond. 1983. “Faraday, Sandemanian,” in The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 35 (June 1983): 101.
—Max Planck. Physicist. Founder of quantum physics.
— Nobel Prize: In recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta.
— Source: Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers as translated by F. Gaynor (1949), p. 184 — Religion and Natural Science (1937)
—Albert Einstein. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.
— Source: Statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968) — Attributed in posthumous publications.
—William Lord Kelvin. Physicist and mathematician. Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics
— Nobel Prize: his achievements in thermodynamics.
— Source: Address of Sir William Thomson, Knt., LL.D., F.R.S, President,” in Report of the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Edinburgh in August 1871, pages lxxxiv-cv., 100–101.
—Nevill Francis Mott. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For his work on the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems, especially amorphous semiconductors.
— Source: Mott, as cited in Nevill Mott: Reminiscences and Appreciations, E.A. Davis — editor, London, Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1998, 329.
—William D. Phillips. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light.
— Source: Phillips, William D. 2002b. A letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. May 19.
—Max Born, Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction.
— Source: Frederick E. Trinklein, The God of Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 64.
—Peter Grünberg. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For his discovery with Albert Fert of giant magnetoresistance.
— Source: Cicero: Magazin für Politische Kultur, December 2007.
— Arthur Compton. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: for his discovery of the effect named after him.
— Source: “Why I Believe in Immortality,” This Week, (Sunday supplement to the New Orleans’ The Sunday Item-Tribune; April 12, 1936), 5 ff. Reprinted in Christian Science Sentinel, 62: 32, (August 6, 1960), 1411.
— Werner Karl Heisenberg. Theoretical physicist.
— Nobel Prize: For the creation of quantum mechanics.
— Source: Heisenberg, Scientific and Religious Truth (1973)
— Arthur L. Schawlo. Physicist.
— Nobel Prize: for their contribution to the development of laser spectroscopy.
— Source: H. Margenau, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientist Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (1992).
— Antony Hewish. Radio astronomer
— Nobel Prize: For their pioneering research in radio astrophysics: Ryle for his observations and inventions, in particular of the aperture synthesis technique, and Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars.
— Source: Antony Hewish, “A letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. May 27” (2002).
Medicine
— Ernst Boris Chain. Biochemist.
— Nobel Prize: for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases.
— Source: Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, 147–148.
— Santiago Ramon y Cajal. Neuroscientist, pathologist, and histologist.
— Nobel Prize: In recognition of his work on the structure of the nervous system.
— Source: Reglas y consejos sobre la investigación científica. Los tónicos de la voluntad.
— Alexis Carrell. Surgeon and biologist.
— Nobel Prize: For his work on vascular suture and the transplantation of blood vessels and organs
— Source: Reflections on Life, 1952, Chap. 3, Part 6
— Sir John Carew Eccles. Neurophysiologist and philosopher.
— Nobel Prize: For his discoveries concerning the ionic mechanisms involved in excitation and inhibition in the peripheral and central portions of the nerve cell membrane.
— Source: The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984). p 50.
— Joseph Murray. Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School; chief plastic surgeon at Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Boston.
— Nobel Prize: For work that “proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients.”
— Source: National Catholic Register (December 1–7, 1996) (Murray, as cited in Meyer 1996)
— George Wald. Professor of Biology at Harvard University (1948–1977).
— Nobel Prize: For his work on the biochemistry of vision.
— Source: George Wald, 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 48. [It should be noted he was an atheist when he said this. He later become a deist.]
— Ronald Ross. Professor of Tropical Medicine at Liverpool University (1902–1912); Vice President of the Royal Society (1911–1913).
—Nobel Prize: For his remarkable work on malaria. This poem was written on August 20, 1897, the same day he made his landmark discovery that malaria is transmitted to people by Anopheles mosquitoes.
— Source: Ronald Ross, Memoirs, London, John Murray, 1923, 226.
Hopefully, these quotes are sufficient to convince you that such conflict is nonexistent. Therefore, keep believing. Keep inquiring.
Am I missing someone? If you know any Lauret scientist in any of these categories that is not in the list, but you think it should, comment his/her name with title, why it was given the prize and a verified quote with source.
Some information presented in this list was collected form the free eBook 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe In God. This eBook includes the field of literature, economics and peace.
References:
[1] Editor’s Note: “Scientism” is the idea that science is the sole arbiter of knowledge, everything is else is subjective opinion, fiction, or foolishness. “Naturalism” is the idea that the only thing/s that exist is nature; there is no supernatural realm.
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners.png
Recommended Resources:
Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Zuhby7
Can You See the Supernatural? with Lee Strobel
PodcastIs there credible evidence for the supernatural? What should we make of verifiable near-death experiences (NDEs), angelic encounters, deathbed visions, and miraculous healings? Do these reports point to a reality beyond the material world?
This week, Frank invites the one and only Lee Strobel on the program to discuss the compelling case for the unseen realm, as detailed in his fascinating new book, ‘Seeing the Supernatural: Investigating Angels, Demons, Mystical Dreams, Near-Death Encounters, and Other Mysteries of the Unseen World.’ Drawing from well-documented accounts and interviews with leading experts, Lee and Frank tackle questions like:
From personal stories to peer-reviewed studies, this episode uncovers the mysteries that science alone can’t explain. Even the most skeptical listeners will be challenged to reconsider the limits of naturalism. You won’t be able to peel yourself away from this fascinating conversation—be sure to share it with both your Christian and skeptical friends, and grab a copy of Lee’s latest book (already a New York Times bestseller)–Seeing the Supernatural!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Lee’s website: LeeStrobel.com
Lee’s new book: Seeing the Supernatural
How to Spot a Kant in Sheep’s Clothing
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, UncategorizedOne of the ways you will find philosophy professors denying Christ is through an appeal to Kantian ethics. Kant’s ethical theory uses many positive-sounding words that appeal to our moral intuitions. Yet, when we examine the content, we find that Kant was opposed to Christ as revealed in Scripture. Instead, he sought to elevate the individual’s moral intuitions as the highest authority, and even above the Bible.
I know of professors who lure students in by claiming to be Christians, but then play a shell game: they subtly replace Christianity with Kantianism, and then argue that the Bible and Christianity are false because they contradict their moral intuitions.
Kant’s Ethics
Permit me to give you a brief overview of Kantianism. Immanuel Kant sought to ground ethics not in religion or divine revelation, but in human reason alone. His project was part of the broader Enlightenment goal of establishing a rational foundation for morality that could be universally valid, independent of theological commitments. By itself, that all sounds great. But once we begin to ask what Kant meant by terms like “reason” and “summum bonun,” we run into deep problems. Here’s how he approached it:
1. Moral Law from Within, Not from Above
Kant believed that morality must be autonomous, not heteronomous, that is, it must come from within the rational will of the individual, not from an external authority like God or the Church. By “reason,” Kant distinguished between pure reason (used in studying metaphysics) and practical reason (used to solve problems in means/ends reasoning). He was a skeptic about pure reason, arguing that it ends in contradictions. So, when he tells us to be rational or to use a rational will, he means to use reason to live according to the categorical imperative.
He famously wrote:
This “moral law within” was, for Kant, the source of true ethical obligation. He did not deny God’s existence, but he insisted that moral duties must be discoverable by reason, not dependent on divine command. He speaks like the Serpent from the Garden: he believes to be moral we must determine good and evil for ourselves.
2. The Categorical Imperative
Kant replaced divine law with a purely rational principle: the categorical imperative. This is a test for determining whether an action is morally permissible. His most famous formulation is:
This is an attempt to derive moral law from pure reason, without appeal to consequences, emotions, or divine will. For Kant, if a rule cannot be universalized, it is morally impermissible.
Yet, he bases this on “if you can universalize it.” Can you live with this rule being universal. This means it is a statement of subjective opinion and not objective reality. Nietzsche took this to its logical conclusion in his will to power. Because the Kantian rejects God’s law as heteronomy he has no appeal to anything objective by which to critique the will to power. And this is why professors in the Kantian tradition fell in so easily with philosophies of power like DEI and critical theory.
3. Human Dignity and Autonomy
Kant believed that each person possesses intrinsic worth because of their rational nature. Therefore, one should always treat humanity, whether in oneself or in others, never merely as a means, but always as an end. This principle grounds ethics in respect for persons, not in obedience to God.
The university Kantian combines this with the categorical imperative to make an appeal to abusive empathy. This is when you take advantage of the listener’s disposition to compassion and excuse the wrongdoing of the person who is pitied. How another person feels becomes their moral standard. If someone is poor, we do not consider the possibility of sloth; instead, we ask how they must feel and how good they would feel if they were simply given money and a house. This abusive empathy is used to bully the Christian into accepting the radical leftist morality that Kantianism has become.
Kantianism presupposes Rousseau’s claim that human beings are naturally good and only corrupted by the invention of private property. It rejects God’s providential rule of the world and instead insists that all injustice stems from the unequal distribution of material goods and resources. Kant rejects the biblical doctrines of the Fall and sin, and instead teaches that humans are perfectible through adherence to Kantian moral theory.
4. Religion as Morality’s Handmaid, Not Its Source
In his book Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1792), Kant argued that religion should support morality, not define it. He viewed Christianity as a helpful moral teaching only insofar as it agrees with his subjective reason. It is “subjective reason” because it relies on his moral intuitions about “how the world should be.” Christ was seen more as a moral example than a divine Savior.
And remember, for Kant, “reason” means: What can I universalize?, and then solving practical problems that arise as you live according to that principle. In other words, Kantian “reason” becomes subjective and denies the clear general revelation of God and His moral law.
Kant even called the concept of a divine command the “heteronomy of the will,” which is a failure of reason to guide itself. He wanted a moral law that any rational being, whether religious or not, could recognize and obey.
5. Postulates of Practical Reason
Although Kant did not ground morality in religion, he concluded that moral reasoning requires presupposing three things:
● God (as the guarantor of justice, otherwise unknowable)
● Immortality (so that perfect virtue is achievable)
● Freedom (to be morally responsible)
These are not proofs, but practical postulates, which are ideas we must assume if we are to take morality seriously. Still, they are subordinate to Kantian reason, not based on revelation or faith in Christ.
Kant attempts to get around God’s providence in this world, and the inherent connection of sin and death, by saying that what appears to be unfair in this life (the righteous suffer and the wicked live well) is made right in the next life. He defines the summum bonus, or highest good, this way: “The highest good is the complete unity of virtue and happiness” Critique of Practical Reason, 5:110).
In other words, the summum bonum is the state in which a person who is fully morally good (possessing a good will) also experiences the full happiness that such goodness deserves.
Kant teaches his followers to reject God’s law as heteronomy, to live according to their own subjective intuitions about what should be universal, and to be content with the idea that their self-defined virtue in this life will be rewarded with happiness in the next.
6. The Serpent and Kant
Think about how closely all of this resembles the teaching of the Serpent in Genesis 3. The Kantian is told to determine their own good and evil. God’s law is rejected as imposed, as a limitation on freedom, it is heteronomous and therefore illegitimate.
It is seen as an invasion of the human will by an outside source. But in Genesis 3, God imposed death as a call to repent of sin. Instead of repenting, the Kantian says, “Live by my philosophy, and you will be given happiness in the next life.” “God” becomes a mere postulate, which is a necessary idea to guarantee that promised happiness.
Yet Kant offers no explanation of how a sinner can be reconciled to a perfectly holy and good God. He teaches works righteousness. In his system, the human is not a sinner in need of grace, but someone who does wrong due to social circumstances, and who can be perfected and made virtuous by following Kantian philosophy.
7. Identify the Wolf
As a student, you should understand the philosophy your professors will be imposing on you. You can use Kantianism against them. Instead, insist on your own autonomy and reject their heteronomy. Then challenge their categorical imperative and ask how it escapes absolute subjectivity. And ask why God, who is holy, would ever grant happiness to an unrepentant sinner; someone who has spent a life rejecting God’s law and reducing Christ to a mere moral example rather than the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
The Kantian is no Christian.
Learn to expose your professor’s presuppositions and demolish their arguments. Or better yet, don’t even sign up for, or pay for, such classes. Exercise your autonomy to find a university and professors who recognize what is clearly revealed about God and the moral law through general revelation.
Recommended Resources:
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download)
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
Does “Christian Nationalism” Go Against the Bible? Plus More Q&A
PodcastHow do you respond when someone says your “Christian Nationalism” goes against everything Jesus taught in the Bible? And why are so many Christians preoccupied with LGBTQ+ issues–don’t they have their own sinful behaviors to worry about? In this midweek episode, Frank responds to a listener email from Australia related to these and other hot-button issues by answering questions like:
If you have a question you’d like Frank to answer on a future episode, be sure to send it to hello@crossexamined.org and don’t forget to download the CrossExamined app where you can access every single episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ organized by date, subject content, or guest(s)!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Self-Paced Online Course: Jesus vs. the Culture
Podcast: When Is Love Evil?
Sean McDowell & Carmen Imes: The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained!
The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe
Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan
Is God a Vindictive Bully? by Paul Copan
What Children Show Us About Human Nature
Theology and Christian ApologeticsMost non-believers will tell you that man is basically “good.” When he acts against that basic goodness, it’s the result of disease, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, or some form of mental illness. These, in turn, stem from a failure of society to reach out and provide the right kind of assistance and services. If only we as a society could do more, spend more, provide more, we could eventually create the kind of utopia that “good” people populate.
Christianity, by contrast, teaches a much different worldview. Long ago, the first man and woman exercised their free will to rebel against God, and in so doing created a rift between man and God that continues to this day. Though man has a certain inherent goodness, because he bears the image of God, he is at present broken, corrupted, and fallen, and he manifests that fallen nature in a way that we see quite starkly. Christians have a name for this manifestation – sin. It afflicts and motivates all of us, and no one can escape its pull. Not without divine help, anyway.
Worldviews Shape Our Response to the Gospel
These contrasting worldviews cannot both be correct. And depending on which view you accept, your response to the good news of the Gospel will be different. “Good” people who simply need more education and more refinement don’t need a Savior; they can do just fine on their own, and with a little help from society. But fallen and corrupted people, even well-intentioned ones, are not going to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Their nature, constantly at war with the good that is within them, needs to be recast – remade in the image of the God who made them and left them here.
Is there a way to “prove” which view is correct? How can we reliably determine what man is like in his natural state? First, we need to get our minds around what we mean by terms like “good” or “evil.” I would suggest a simple definition: what we recognize as “good” in other people is the product of an intentional effort at selflessness. Whether it’s sacrificial love, working for charity or simply a random act of kindness – what we experience as “good” is an act directed to the benefit of the other. By contrast, what we see as evil is an act directed at satisfying within oneself a base or selfish end. The quests for power, for recognition, for material wealth, for dominance – all these things drive people to ignore the harm inflicted as they climb over those who stand in their way.
But, What About the Babies?!
Now, with this basic concept in mind, what can we see from examining man in his most primitive state? I don’t mean primitive as in caveman, but as in newborn. Spend even a little time with infants and toddlers, and you’ll see some basic features emerge. Each views himself as the center of the universe and expects his parents and the other kids around him to treat him accordingly. With each passing month, the willfulness of the child’s behavior becomes increasingly apparent: from every fiber of his being, he is shouting, “I want things my way!” Whether it’s food or drink, when and how he wants it, his mother’s attention, or his playmate’s toys, a developing child’s “me-focus” is readily on display. And if his will is thwarted, there is no resort to reason – a temper tantrum is the predictable result.
Now, some might object that children are innocent and cannot be described as bad or broken, or worse yet, evil. They might point out that children are free from the biases and prejudices that sour many adult relationships. But this objection misses my point. I would not describe children as evil either, because evil implies a level of awareness of the harm one is doing, and a small child does not yet appreciate the consequences of his behavior. But the child’s behavior is reflective of the way his mind operates, and unless a parent applies discipline and training to bend the will to a proper orientation, a spoiled, self-centered adolescent will emerge.
Evil Comes Naturally
Consider: no parents ever have to train their child to give up his positive and sunny disposition and be more critical of others; they don’t need to punish their children for sharing too much and instead teach them to rip their toys out of the hands of their playmates; they don’t need to insist that a child stop thinking so much about what he can do for his parents – “Can’t I wash the dishes or sweep the deck? I really don’t have anything else to do?” No, for every child, the process of “civilizing” is a process of moving from a me-centered selfishness to an other-centered effort to get along.
Children don’t have the insight yet to seek to change their ways, to live more cooperatively and altruistically. Their parents’ job is to teach them – to help them move from their inherent fallenness to a state which is not quite natural to us, a state in which we are intentional about trying to do good. The non-believer can also do good. But by rejecting God as the source of true goodness, he remains in defiance to God. He refuses to see his need for a Savior to finish the job of making him good. He refuses to bend his will to God. It is no coincidence that the Bible speaks of becoming a “slave” to Christ. For in the end, it is only by bending to Him – by dying to ourselves as we look outward to others in order to better serve Him – that we can eventually find the solution to our problem.
Believing that we are basically good flies in the face of the reality of what we truly are. It stands in the way of our crying out for the Savior who alone has the power to restore us. Observing children in their natural condition can help give us a better picture of ours.
This is one of the few lessons that we should allow our children to teach us.
Recommended Resources:
If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
Who is Luke’s Key Witness? with Shane Rosenthal
PodcastHow much do we really know about the “most excellent Theophilus,” and why did Luke dedicate both his Gospel and the Book of Acts to him? The answer might come from an unexpected source—one that’s supported by archaeology, literary structure, and a series of “undesigned coincidences.” In this paradigm-shifting episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’, we explore a groundbreaking new theory that could revolutionize your understanding of Luke’s Gospel.
This week, Frank welcomes Shane Rosenthal—host of The Humble Skeptic podcast and author of, ‘Luke’s Key Witness‘—to uncover fresh discoveries that some New Testament scholars haven’t even encountered yet. Together, they dive into Shane’s investigation and the growing body of evidence that supports his theory behind who he believes to be one of the main eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. Join Frank and Shane as they explore questions like:
You don’t want to miss this fascinating episode as Shane reveals surprising connections and overlooked clues that shed new light on the Gospel narrative. And be sure to check out a free preview of Shane’s book, ‘Luke’s Key Witness’ by visiting his website, HumbleSkeptic.com!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Shane’s website: HumbleSkeptic.com
Shane’s book: Luke’s Key Witness
Luke: A Commentary by Peter. G. Bolt
Secular Professor Tactics 101
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsAs a parent or student it will help you to know that in many cases your secular professors have a strategy. They have a goal. A strategy is the big-picture plan to win or achieve that goal. Tactics are the step-by-step methods used to carry it out. I’ve told you before that you can see their goal by how they live their own lives. But now let’s look at their classroom tactics.
If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you need to understand the tactics of the secular professor. For many of them, “winning” means leading students to adopt a radical leftist ideology—either by outright agreement or by slow, subtle influence. Agreement isn’t always demanded immediately. Sometimes, all they want is your gradual surrender of confidence in anything else. The big win, however, is final deconversion from Christianity and acceptance of something like the LGBTQ+ “safe zone” philosophy pushed at ASU.
Undermining Christianity: The Real Strategy
The strategy of many secular professors is simple: undermine Christianity. Why? Because Christianity remains the major roadblock to their radical leftist ideology. Without that, their goal is in sight.
If you had to guess a student’s religion, statistically, you’d guess Christian and be right more often than not. Christianity remains the default framework for morality, identity, and truth for many students, even if only in fragments. Christian teaching is the main roadblock to the Marxism at the core of the radical left.
And that’s a problem—for them.
The teachings of Christianity are fundamentally incompatible with the radical left’s view of sex, gender, truth, power, and the good life. So, it’s not just about “dialogue” or “working together.” Before they can win a student to their worldview, they must first destabilize the student’s confidence in Christianity. Undermine the foundation, and the rest of the structure will fall. That’s the strategy. Their tactics follow.
How the Strategy Is Carried Out: Tactics You Should Know
This strategy to undermine Christianity is carried out through many identifiable tactics. For parents and students, it’s worth learning these—not only to recognize what’s happening, but also to see how poorly equipped many of these professors are for the intellectual life they claim to lead. Scripture puts it plainly: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). What we’re witnessing in many classrooms today is a real-time application of that verse. Let’s examine a few of their most common tactics. We’ll begin with three—but the list, sadly, is always growing.
Tactic #1: Undermine the Word of God
The first and most foundational tactic is to undermine the authority of Scripture. This can take the form of a direct assault—mocking the Bible as outdated, oppressive, or absurd—or a more subtle approach: cherry-picking verses to support radical leftist ideology.
For example, I have a colleague—openly anti-Christian—who claims that Matthew 25:40 (“Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me”) is the best verse in the Bible. Why? Because she believes it proves her progressive social philosophy. On her reading, all you have to do is advocate for so-called sexual minorities, and you’re doing exactly what Jesus said. No need for sound doctrine. No need to understand the whole Bible. Just grab a single verse and weaponize it. Incidentally, it is worth noting that in this specific verse, Jesus is speaking about believers.
But that’s only half the tactic. The next step is to accuse actual Christians of not living up to the verse. She’ll claim that conservative Christians don’t care for the poor or marginalized—never mind the fact (which students rarely hear) that conservative Christians out-give atheist professors by a staggering margin when it comes to charity, adoption, missions, disaster relief, and practical acts of compassion.
Still, students don’t know that. So the professor paints a picture: the Bible is on her side, and Christians are hypocrites who don’t live up to it.
You’ll notice she never mentions John 6, where Jesus rebukes the crowd for following Him only to get bread, rather than the Bread of Life. She’s not interested in the full counsel of God—only the verses that can be twisted to serve her ideological agenda.
There are other versions of this tactic. One common move is to deny that the Bible even teaches that homosexuality is a sin. “That’s just in Leviticus,” they’ll say, “and no Christian keeps that anymore.”
I call this the “Did God really say?” tactic. Just like the serpent in the garden, the secular professor begins by sowing doubt: Did God really say that?
Did He really say that homosexuality is a sin?
Did He really define male and female?
Did He really establish the moral order we find in Scripture?
If they can get the student to doubt the clarity, authority, or consistency of God’s Word, they’ve won the first battle.
Tactic #2: Vilify Christianity
The second tactic is to vilify Christianity—to paint it not as the source of civilization’s greatest moral and social advances, but as the root of all historical evil. This is straight out of the classical Marxist playbook, so anyone familiar with the last 150 years of ideology should see it coming a mile away.
Unfortunately, most parents assume we’ve moved past this kind of propaganda. And most students, born long after the fall of the USSR, have never heard a rebuttal. So here’s what they’ll be told:
Christianity invented slavery.
Christianity promoted poverty.
Christians fought to keep people oppressed.
Of course, if you dig long enough, you can always find someone—somewhere—who called themselves a Christian and said something foolish or sinful. That’s not hard. But that’s not the [larger] truth. The truth is this: Christianity gave birth to orphanages, hospitals, and universities. It introduced the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and the foundation for economic growth and human rights. Christianity gave entire nations the hope of a better future in this life—and the next.
You won’t hear that in most classrooms. Instead, students will be told that Christianity supported slavery. But the historical reality is that slavery was universal in the ancient world. Christianity challenged and ultimately abolished it in Christianized nations—while it still exists today in non-Christian societies.
Why do professors hide this? Because the tactic is designed to make students (specifically white male Christian students) ashamed of their own heritage, their faith, and their families. That shame softens them. Once a student is ashamed of Christianity, they can be more easily reprogrammed and brainwashed. The Marxists knew this. And today’s professors are still using the same tactic with unnerving skill.
Tactic #3: Teach That It Doesn’t Matter Either Way
This tactic is all about misdirection. Unlike the first two, which confront Christianity directly, this one tries to bypass it entirely. The professor simply avoids mentioning the Bible at all. Why? Because attacking it outright might prompt a student to open it—and then the risk is that the student might actually be convinced by its truth. So, instead, the tactic is silence.
The professor communicates—both directly and indirectly—that the student can live a good, meaningful, moral life without ever knowing what the Bible says. If Scripture does come up, it’s brushed aside with a casual, dismissive remark: “Oh, the Bible? Sure, there are a few good things in there—for people who like that sort of thing.”
The message is clear: the Bible is irrelevant.
Not dangerous. Not sacred. Just… beside the point.
Outdated. Unnecessary. Background noise.
This is misdirection at its finest—because it leaves the student disarmed. There’s no battle to fight if the battlefield itself is ignored. The professor shifts the student’s focus to career, activism, self-expression—anything but divine truth. And over time, the student begins to believe the lie that neutrality is possible, and that the big questions of life—truth, meaning, morality, destiny—can be answered without reference to God. But that is not neutrality. That’s secularism in disguise.
Spot the Tactic: A Challenge for Students
Recognizing these tactics is the first step to seeing how certain professors use their class time—not to educate—but to advance a strategy of deconverting Christian students. In fact, you might even turn it into a bit of a game. Challenge your friends:
Keep score. Compare notes. And when you’re ready, send me your tallies—I’ll make sure they’re seen by those with oversight at the university. Because let’s be clear: taxpayers aren’t funding this nonsense.[1] And it certainly doesn’t qualify as “education.”
References:
[1] [Editor’s note: At least, taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund any anti-religious bigotry or anti-Christian indoctrination or deconversion tactics.]
Recommended Resources:
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download)
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
When Is Love Evil?
PodcastWhat ONE insight will either make or break your life as a Christian, or even as a non-Christian? If followed, it will help your marriage, parenting, business, job, friendships, politics, and most importantly, your eternity and your relationship with Jesus.
Spurred by recent political and cultural events surrounding President Trump’s first 100 days in office and comments made by Vice President J.D. Vance during a recent interview about protecting the interest of American citizens, Frank reminds listeners of the doctrine of “Ordered Loves”. Originally articulated by Augustine over 1,600 years ago, this classic school of thought seems to be totally lost among our culture today. Tune in as Frank answers questions like:
In his article, ‘Why Progressive Christians Reject the Doctrine of “Ordered Loves”‘, Michael Clary writes, “Whether we like it or not, God’s world is ordered and hierarchical. We can embrace it and enjoy the blessings of living according to God’s design, or we can reject it and live a life of bitterness, like so many progressives.” The choice is yours!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Toxic Empathy by Allie Beth Stuckey
Why Progressive Christians Reject the Doctrine of “Ordered Loves” by Michael Clary
When Jesus Insulted People: A Comprehensive List
Resurge Podcast: Four Megachurch Pastors Debrief White House Visit
How The After Party Curriculum Is Sowing Political Confusion in the Church by Natasha Crain
A Wolf in Women’s Clothing: The One Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsThe bathroom debate has resurrected some very old questions about women’s rights.[1] Once upon a time, women fought for separate bathrooms from men. The reasons were obvious. Privacy, modesty, prudence, and the unfortunate fact that men have a worse record for physical and sexual violence. It’s not in women’s best interests to get stuck in a bathroom with a strange man, if she can help it. But in recent years, the common-sense solution of “separate bathrooms” has come under fire. The Trump administration has introduced a new level of pushback, but the bathroom debate is still far from settled. I have to wonder, however, if we could let the air out of this inflated debate by asking one simple question.
The Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer
If we ask the right question, we can show that trans-activists aren’t very serious in proposing trans-inclusive bathrooms. Of course, trans-activists probably think they’re serious. We don’t have to question their intentions here either. Good intentions can’t redeem bad policy anyway. So, for the sake of argument, we can grant good intentions – compassion for marginalized people, commitment to justice, loving your neighbor, human rights, etc. But when activists push for trans-inclusive bathrooms they have to answer this important question. Otherwise, they haven’t really thought through the issue. So they aren’t very serious. That question is simply this:
When I say “predators” I’m not talking about all LGBTQ folks or “trans-women” generally. I’m talking about would-be sex criminals: the voyeurs, rapists, pedophiles, criminal opportunists, and even “autogynephilic” men (males who derive sexual arousal from imagining themselves as women). Predators really exist. We can expect some predators to trespass into women’s restrooms as long as naïve policy allows them to. Predators are liable to spawn as long as the systems in place give mischievous males unfettered access to potential victims. In this way, predators are a reliable “test case” for progressive bathroom policies.
Trans vs. Trans-Acting?
We cannot rationally assume that every man who would use a women’s bathroom is a “trans-woman” (biological male who ‘identifies’ as female). Sure, he might be a classic transgender case who poses no real threat to women. But, he could instead be a cross-dresser who likes to sneak a peek at the ladies. He could be a flasher or a sexual harasser he gets a kick out of exposing himself or behaving rudely with women in the restroom. He could be a pedophile, taking mental pics of naked girls, to fantasize about them later. Or he could be a rapist who’d gladly wear a dress if it means open access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Or he could be a clinically sick teen boy using performative gender to corner his “girl crush”, alone, so she can’t reject him if she tried. History, criminal psychology, and a healthy dose of realism, attest that these are all live possibilities as long as biological males are legally allowed in women’s restrooms.
Maintaining separate bathrooms has, traditionally, been the common-sense solution for reducing those threats. No solution is 100% perfect here. But, realistically, keeping biological males out of women’s restrooms and locker rooms is a good start for policing against perverts and predators. Dropping that wall of separation means reducing our practical ability to protect women from predators. Bear in mind, we still have active laws against flashers, sexual harassers, and peeping toms. But, if it’s legal to do all of that now, as long as you “trans-act”, then our bathroom policies have given perverts and predators an escape clause in our legal code.
Sheep, Goats and Wolves
It would be nice if every “trans-woman” was just an innocent, lost sheep. Maybe they just need a little care, understanding, and a little guidance, to bring them into the fold. Then God could redeem their own unique gender-expression and sexual identity however He sees fit. Perhaps if the church did a better job caring for “widows and orphans,” i.e., fatherlessness, we wouldn’t have as much transgenderism going around (James 1:27; Exod. 22:22; 1 Tim. 5:5). Undoubtedly, there are some lost sheep out there that fit this profile.
The debate over trans-inclusive bathrooms would be a lot simpler if we were only dealing with the proverbial lost sheep. But, realistically, our policies must also account for goats (fakes and frauds). And we especially need to watch out for the wolves (predators and criminal opportunists). We cannot reasonably assume every “trans-woman” is a “lost sheep.” Instead, we have every reason to expect some of them to be wolves in women’s clothing.
The next time someone offers a policy proposal where trans-women can use the women’s restroom, you can ask them how that policy will police against predators? It’s a fair question. We used to police against them by, first, separating bathrooms according to sex. But, if biological males are now allowed into women’s restrooms, how do we expect to replace that policing power now that the perimeter defenses are down?
Remember the Wisdom of Separate Bathrooms
The ugly answer seems to be that trans-inclusive bathroom policy was never intended for women’s safety, but rather for men’s convenience. Males who identify as female are the target audience here, even if biological women are left in the lurch because of it. When inclusive-bathroom policies unwittingly carry a pack of savvy predators, as stow-aways, then as soon as they’re dropped on women’s restrooms, that’s like airdropping a pack of wolves into the sheep pen. Women deserve better. Moreover, it doesn’t do trans-activists any favors when their own policy is readily hijacked by criminals and predators. We do well to preserve separate bathrooms.
References:
[1] A “quick fix” solution here is to make only “single-stall” bathrooms. That option can work in some cases, but it’s often impractical for stadiums, locker rooms, health clubs, large businesses, and so forth. The bathroom debate isn’t that easily solved.
Recommended Resources:
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)
Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.