For those who haven’t heard of it, The After Party (TAP) is a small group curriculum and corresponding book that is being heavily promoted this election year to individuals, churches, and Christian institutions (such as colleges) to counter the “dangerous trend” of evangelicals having their political identity formed by “partisan forces, not by true Biblical faith.”
What is The After Party Curriculum?
The curriculum was developed by David French (New York Times columnist), Russell Moore (Editor-in-Chief of Christianity Today), and Curtis Chang. Fewer people are familiar with Chang than with French and Moore, but for context, his most notable project was called “Christians and the Vaccine,” through which he led a national effort to convince Covid vaccine-resistant evangelicals that their “anxiety, distrust of institutions, and political polarization” was threatening the vaccine’s potential for “healing our world.”
Earlier this year, TAP made a lot of headlines when journalist Megan Basham published a First Things article detailing how the whole project was funded by hard-left foundations (“Follow the Money to The After Party”). Alisa Childers and I also did an episode on our Unshaken Faith podcast in February in which we discussed the inherent problems with progressives funding Christian curriculum (as well as other concerns about TAP).
Since then, I’ve heard from quite a few people with concerns that their church is rolling the curriculum out this fall. When they share Megan’s article or Alisa’s and my episode, some of these churches recognize the implications and change course. However, others have pushed back to say that we didn’t specifically address the content of the curriculum, only the funding. While I think the funding speaks for itself (listen to my recent podcast interview with Megan, in which we spend about 10 minutes discussing why), I want to now address—in depth—why the content itself is clearly problematic. It might seem peculiar that I would write my longest article ever on such a niche topic, but I hope that this level of detail will give pastors and concerned church members a better understanding of why this book should absolutely be avoided.
In particular, for purposes of this article, I’m evaluating the book specifically. While the book is not a necessary part of the small group curriculum, TAP creators say, “This paradigm-shifting book is designed to complement the course. Read it beforehand to discern if the course is a fit for your needs—or read it afterward to go deeper on a Jesus-centered approach to politics.” So, in their estimation, this is a deeper exploration of their approach and claims in the small group curriculum; if you agree that the book is problematic given what I say below, then the small group curriculum should be ruled out as well given their stated relationship.
What’s the Goal of TAP?
Before you can understand the key problems with TAP, it’s important to understand their stated goals. According to their website:
“The After Party is a collection of resources designed by the non-profit Redeeming Babel to help you move towards better Christian politics. Our video course, book, and worship music were designed for pastors & people who know there’s a better way to ‘do politics.’ As you engage with our materials, you’ll be equipped & encouraged to do the hard work of engaging across differences, reframe your political identity in light of the Gospel’s promises, and focusing your heart & mind on the ‘how’ of relating to each other before the ‘what’ of political opinions.”
Reading this description and other similar marketing language TAP uses, you might think it’s pretty innocuous. People can absolutely treat each other poorly in discussing politics, we’re in the middle of a particularly contentious election season, Christians need to have their identity first and foremost in Jesus, and it can be good to be reminded that how we engage does matter.
In fact, in going to their site right now to grab a link for this article, I was shown the following pop-up:
“We’d love to send you a free sample of our latest book to help you (perhaps!) reframe how you think about politics in light of biblical virtues like kindness, love, and mercy. It’s practical & full of hope—and we think you’ll like it!”
Again, this sounds great.
From TAP’s marketing, one would think this is simply a curriculum to help Christians think about charitable communication. The creators repeatedly claim it’s non-partisan and continually emphasize this is just about the “how”—something any church should be able to get behind, or so the story goes.
But, to be blunt, I believe this is highly disingenuous marketing given the content of the book. The marketing is designed to attract churches who would like to simply encourage charitable communication, but the execution is designed to convince Christians that they shouldn’t be so conservative.
The marketing is designed to attract churches who would like to simply encourage charitable communication, but the execution is designed to convince Christians that they shouldn’t be so conservative.
In fact, when you really see through what they’re saying in TAP—as I’ll demonstrate in a moment—it’s completely obvious why hard-left foundations funded it. Although TAP repeatedly said publicly that the funding source shouldn’t matter, any reasonable person should want to know why progressive non-Christian organizations would be interested in financing a church curriculum. TAP trivialized the importance of that question, but it’s easily answered when you read the book. Given the content, I could imagine TAP’s pitch to these progressive foundations sounding something like this:
“We, like you, despise Donald Trump. And we, like you, are greatly disturbed by how many Christians helped put him in power. But Christians still predominantly think that they should vote Republican regardless of who the candidate is—even if it’s a despotic threat like Trump. We believe that if we can get Christians to think that politics is more complex than they realize, that they can’t ever be certain that their view on a given subject aligns with what God thinks, and that being humble means seeing all political positions as equally viable for Christ followers . . . then we’ll see a weaker correlation with Christians and conservative positions over time. The key is to introduce these subjects using marketing language that’s nonthreatening and that every Christian should presumably agree on going into it—for example, that we should engage more graciously with one another. This curriculum would therefore be sold as the ‘how’ of doing politics, but in execution, we hope to weaken the Republican party’s hold on the church. Want to help us fund it?”
Yes, I’m reading into their motivations. But the rest of this long article will make my case for why I believe this is a fair characterization.
On a final note before we get into the details, church leaders and other Christians who think the hypothetical pitch above represents a worthy project will, of course, love TAP. This article isn’t for them. This article is for those churches who have been deceived by the marketing into thinking this is just a curriculum about better communication and would be gravely concerned to find out it’s actually going to confuse their members into believing there’s moral equivalence between the political parties. If you and/or your church leaders believe there is no moral equivalence on major issues such as abortion, gender ideology, neo-Marxist indoctrination in K-12 schools, and all the societal manifestations of identity politics, then you’ll want to stay far away from sowing the seeds of confusion this curriculum will bring. Whether Christians choose to vote for Trump or a third party is another question, but if you recognize the danger in pushing Christians to the Democratic platform, you need to understand in detail what TAP is trying to do.
Here’s what you should know.
- Despite the claims of the creators, TAP is in no way “non-partisan.”
The book opens with a story about a couple named Sean and Emily, whose kids are asking why they don’t see Sean’s parents, Jack and Cindy, anymore. The reader learns that it’s due to “political differences.” Jack and Cindy are described as a couple who grew up where “almost everyone was White, Republican, and conservative Christian” (p. 2). Because of this background, TAP describes them as utterly unable to understand “diversity” (p. 2). Sean leaves home and in college meets “faithful Christians with and entirely different cultural perspectives from his own…His assumption that Christian identity should equate to conservative politics was weakening” (p. 3).
While Jack and Cindy are portrayed condescendingly as conservatives with no understanding of the diverse world around them, Sean’s Japanese-American wife Emily is portrayed sympathetically as someone with a “keen sympathy with those who have been excluded by our country and a sensitivity to the legacy of systemic injustice.” Emily feels over time that Jack’s repeated political comments are an attack on her personally, and she and Sean decide to not see them further. The bottom line is clear: The conservative parents with a “homogenous background” didn’t prepare them for recognizing how others differ (p. 8). TAP says, “If diversity was never present in your life, you will struggle to understand others who are different from you and to navigate a national context defined by difference” (p. 12).
Chapters later in the book, TAP revisits the story, tells how Sean finally told his dad that he was offended by his assumption that his political ideology was the only correct one, and concludes that Sean’s indignation is what finally humbled Jack.
This opening story sets the tone for the rest of the book. Conservatives are always the ones who need to learn to open their eyes to other viewpoints.
“The tone of the book: Conservatives are always the ones who need to open their eyes other viewpoints”
For example, David French speaks to how he went from a confident conservative to one who started questioning certain conservative positions “the more he learned” (p. 83). Nancy French (David’s wife and co-author of the book) describes her time as a ghostwriter for political leaders saying, “My clients, many of whom were churchgoing Christians, did not necessarily believe that the Jesus ethic applied to politics. They were fine with using sharp elbows, slightly twisting the truth, or unfairly characterizing an event to meet their needs. When I pushed back, they called me naïve. They said that the Left was playing hardball and we needed to as well, or we’d get left behind” (p. 63). Clearly, she’s talking specifically about conservatives here.
Similarly, Curtis Chang wrote, “In the first month of my freshman year, I met some Black Christian undergraduates who invited me to a weekly Saturday morning study group. I had grown up in a quasi-fundamentalist church that entirely avoided any teaching on politics. My new friends were the first Christians I had ever met who were trying to dig into Scripture to excavate the connections between faith and politics. They believed the central connection between these two realms was justice” (p. 139). He goes on to define justice through a progressive lens of systemic racism, and it was his supposed enlightenment about racial issues that made him less conservative. In a rare moment of balance, he did acknowledge that he then swung “way over to the left side” of the political spectrum and that he began seeing problems there too.
Here are several other examples of how TAP is not non-partisan in execution:
- Russell Moore says that multiple pastors have told him that when they quote the Sermon on the Mount, “specifically the part that says to turn the other cheek, they get pushback from their congregants. Invariably, someone will come up after the service and ask, ‘Where did you get those liberal talking points?’” (p. 47). Of course, that implies these are conservatives who keep getting things wrong. TAP goes on to patronizingly explain how these conservatives just don’t understand Jesus’s instruction in the Sermon on the Mount. The irony is that the passage on turning the other cheek is about what to do when someone personally insults you. It has nothing to do with the nature of how Christians should advocate for righteousness in the public square (other than turning the other cheek when someone personally insults you for that advocacy).
- TAP mocks the idea that anyone would think Christianity is “under attack.” They suggest that readers Google that phrase to get an idea of “pundits or organization[s] using this line of panicked reasoning to separate you from the money in your wallet” (p. 68). Progressives, of course, don’t think Christianity is under attack. Many conservatives, however, do look at what is going on in the legal sphere and believe that to be the case (see the Alliance Defending Freedom for examples). So, in mocking this idea, they are implicitly mocking conservatives.
- Despite the fact that TAP repeatedly shows disdain for Christians who care deeply concerned about the “what” of politics (more on that shortly), the authors repeatedly raise the example of the 1960s civil rights movement and corresponding societal changes as glowing examples of political change. Apparently racial justice is an acceptable and important “what”—and one that they’re willing to highlight because it’s not considered an unpopular conservative position today (p. 69). Almost inexplicably, they say “compromise instead of power plays” is a key to the how of politics they seek. One has to wonder if they think the civil rights movement should have compromised. I doubt they’d say that.
- When discussing the personality profile of what they call the political “cynic,” they say, “As more citizens are influenced by the self-certitude of cynicism, the average person is increasingly willing to believe that he—armed with a few online videos produced by fringe voices (that sound very confident)—know better about the complexities of specific issues than the established scientific institutions” (p. 75). It doesn’t take a genius to know this is a reference to Covid and the fact that many conservatives questioned “the science.” Regardless of your Covid views, it’s another example of conservatives being singled out, even when not explicit.
- As Chang tells his personal story, he says, “At the same time, conservative White evangelicals were being swamped with misinformation since the initial response to the pandemic had been politicized. Conservative White distrust of public-health institutions was riding high, and the vaccine was being swept up in that wave of misinformation and distrust.” As I said earlier, Chang led an initiative to convince evangelicals to get vaccinated, and because he encountered racist comments online, he commented, “The presence of racism within conservative politics is just as real, and it’s ugly. I had to ask myself, ‘Do I really want to try to save the lives of people who seem to hate my people?’” (p. 163). Clearly, (white) conservatives are pictured here as holding disdainful views. And surely there are conservatives who do have disdainful views…just as there are progressives with disdainful views. But it’s the conservatives that TAP continually frames negatively.
Bottom line: While TAP occasionally pays lip service to how people on both sides of the political aisle can err, the overriding and very clear theme is that conservatives are less sophisticated thinkers who don’t understand the complexities of other views and vote conservatively because it’s all they’ve ever associated with Christianity. TAP clearly wants people to start believing their biblical worldview doesn’t have to lead to conservative positions. It’s not non-partisan to obviously work toward moving people away from one specific political side.
- Even if one were to believe TAP is non-partisan, no one can deny TAP is specifically anti-Trump.
While I think I’ve provided plenty of examples that represent how the book seeks to move people away from conservative views, let’s say for the sake of argument you want to give TAP the benefit of the doubt and are going to believe they are non-partisan at least in intention (even if not execution). What no one can deny is that the book is specifically anti-Trump. This shouldn’t be surprising if you know that the authors are all outspoken “never Trumpers.” And that comes through loud and clear.
Trump is mentioned multiple times, either explicitly or implicitly, all in a negative sense. January 6th in particular is in view several of those times. For example, TAP says,
“The events of January 6, 2021, revealed how even that bulwark is threatened. As a country, we now have a very recent experience of a violent insurrection, stirred by an outgoing president who consciously mobilized the us-versus-them mentality to resist the peaceful transfer of power” (p. 16).
“We now face a growing number of false Christian teachers spewing the heresy that followers of Jesus should take up arms as happened at the insurrection on January 6, 2021. That date is an unmistakable sign: the threat of political violence is real” (p. 153).
I don’t recall any corresponding concern with violence from the left.
As another example, after reflecting on the Sermon on the Mount, TAP says,
“Sadly, American evangelical political culture somehow exempts followers and leaders from these practices. We vote for candidates who blatantly and gleefully violate these practices commanded by Jesus because we believe practices based on spiritual values (versus political expediency) are not adequate for the moment” (p. 47).
It’s pretty obvious that three “never Trumpers” are talking about Trump, who is (rightly) known for problematic character in certain aspects of his life. There’s no discussion of why some conservatives chose to vote for Trump based on policy comparisons between the parties—just accusatory statements about how people voting for Trump don’t believe “spiritual values” are “adequate.”
Lest anyone think I’m reading too much into TAP’s statements about Trump, I’ll point you to David French’s response in a Holy Post podcast when he was asked why Christian sources weren’t willing to fund the curriculum. He said, “When you take on MAGA, a lot of threats and intimidation follow.” I was surprised he played his hand so obviously in that statement, but he explicitly sees TAP as taking on MAGA.
For the record, there are zero mentions of Biden in TAP. Given that this election comes down to Biden’s successor and Trump, and TAP is explicitly anti-Trump, it’s no stretch of the imagination to say that TAP is seeking to discourage Christians from thinking they should vote for the Republican candidate this year. That’s not to say they are directly claiming Christians should vote for the Democratic candidate, but rather that they want fewer Christians to consider Trump a viable choice for believers. And if fewer do, it of course implies some of them will vote for Harris. Indeed, David French recently wrote a New York Times op-ed titled, “To Save Conservativism from Itself, I Am Voting for Harris.” I didn’t have to see his op-ed to know how he would vote. I could easily gather that from TAP.
And maybe you agree with David French’s assessment. My point here is not to make a case either way. What I am saying is that it’s entirely disingenuous to market TAP as a non-partisan curriculum designed to just help Christians communicate more graciously given what I’ve summarized here. I think it’s fair to say that TAP’s highest goal is that Christians don’t vote for Trump. Everything else is a byproduct.
- Despite the marketing, TAP is not just about the “how” of politics, but about the importance of the “how” over the “what.”
TAP says, for example, “We need better Christian politics. ‘Better’ doesn’t mean we need to change our political views. But it does mean we need to change our hearts” (p. 26). This is representative of the book’s repeated idea that our “how” is more important than our “what.”
I would agree that the “how” is important—basically, we shouldn’t be jerks to one another—but can we really say that the manner of our conduct is more important than the positions themselves? Can we really say that it’s more important that a Christian be kind when communicating than that they hold a pro-life position opposed to the slaughter of innocent preborn humans? Can we really say that we need to be gracious in communication more so than we need an understanding that gender ideology and its policy manifestations are abhorrent to God? Of course, we would hope that Christians do the “how” well and hold God-honoring positions for the “what.” But it’s very problematic to claim that the “how” is more important.
- Not only does TAP place the “how” over the “what,” it often has disdain for the “what.”
TAP says, “A political party is defined by the collective drive to win, to defeat the opposing party” (p. 45). This is cast as a bad thing that gets in the way of relationships. But it’s a bizarre statement. The drive to win doesn’t define a political party. A political party is “an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a particular country’s elections” (as one example definition from Wikipedia). In a country with a healthy government, there will be elections, and therefore parties. Of course, the parties want their own candidate to win and defeat the other candidate. And if one party consistently promotes an agenda that’s opposed to godly views, we should be happy that any other party would want to defeat that party. There’s nothing inherently problematic about a political party wanting to win; that’s the nature of what a political party is. But TAP repeatedly makes statements like this that I believe show a disdain for any Christian thinking there’s one right position to hold on any given issue—the “what.”
Perhaps the most egregious of all statements with respect to this issue is the following:
“The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) summarizes Jesus’ most often repeated teachings. In those chapter, Jesus does not advocate for either rival political camp’s specific policies. And if you try to draw a clear and incontestable arrow from Jesus’ teaching to a specific policy debate between today’s Right and Left, you can do so only by greatly distorting Jesus’ words to fit your political agenda” (p. 46).
First of all, as Christians, we don’t singularly use the Sermon on the Mount to determine our theology even if what TAP says here were true. Romans 13, for example, is directly related to politics and clearly states that government is a God-given institution for the purpose of promoting good and restraining evil. That requires us to know what good and evil are and advocate accordingly. We can absolutely map certain issues (not all) to what is good and evil by God’s definition (abortion and gender ideology being obvious examples).
Second, part of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’s famous teaching about being salt and light. Our light is meant to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). Yes, we need to be gracious and care about relationships with people (as the book emphasizes), but that’s a matter of approach not content. The content of what we advocate for is what illuminates evil in society.
But TAP doesn’t try to help Christians understand how important their political views are in shaping a society for God’s good and against evil. Instead, TAP sees one of the greatest evils as having a “partisan mind.” For example, TAP says that the person with a partisan mind who is also a Christian “believes not only that us is right but also that us is on God’s side” (p. 84). There’s no discussion about whether or not it’s possible for a position to actually line up with God’s side—just that if you think you think you’re on God’s side, that’s a sign of a problematic “partisan mind.” The partisan mind is even compared to a “forbidden weapon” (p. 88), and it’s mentioned 21 times in the book.
Furthermore, TAP says that:
“the struggle is not against flesh and blood: it is not Right versus Left, Republican versus Democrat. The battle is against the devil, the Evil One who seeks to undermine the credibility of the cross’s power to ‘reconcile all things.’ The devil is trying to pit people against each other via politics” (p. 98).
The struggle is against spiritual forces, but those spiritual forces have aims being worked out in the material world. Take gender ideology, for example. Yes, it’s a spiritual battle that people have come to believe that gender is a social construct rather than God’s good design and are mutilating their bodies accordingly. But the Democratic party is proactively promoting gender ideology as truth to the harm of many. I’m not sure the devil cares much about pitting people against each other for the sake of seeing us argue, as TAP makes it sound. But I’m very sure the devil cares to confuse society about God’s design. We need to love people enough to stand up for truth in society and advocate accordingly for policies. Yes, it’s a spiritual battle, but there are humans carrying it out. TAP knows this, though—a couple of pages later they talk glowingly about the civil rights movement (carried out by people, of course). So, it’s not disdain for all “whats,” just the ones conservatives tend to champion.
- TAP thinks humility means not being confident that your views align with the Bible.
TAP gives a passing nod to the fact that “our religious commitments can and should inform our political commitments,” but it’s obvious they don’t think we should be confident our positions are the only positions that align with the Bible. Why? Apparently, humility requires it.
Much of TAP is defined by this statement: “The After Party project believes that hope and humility are crucial spiritual values for political discipleship under Jesus” (p. 56).
TAP relates the account of the disciples James and John asking Jesus to sit at His right and left in glory (Mark 10:35-45). Because Jesus rebukes them for not knowing what they ask for, TAP concludes, “Jesus’s assessment of them is clear: When it comes to your political hopes, your knowledge is incomplete. Your hope needs to be paired with humility.” I honestly have no idea how they are drawing this conclusion. To conflate James and John’s heavenly hope with the hope we have for earthly political outcomes is, again, egregious.
In another discussion of humility, TAP says, “Instead of being preoccupied with our party coming out on top, we focus on serving others” (p.64). This is simultaneously a strawman and a false dichotomy. Conservative Christians who are passionate about advocating for righteousness on top priority issues like abortion aren’t “preoccupied” in some unhealthy way as this implies—we are rightfully and gravely concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies. I can’t think of a better way to “serve others” than by working to be a voice for the preborn.
TAP wants readers to think that issues are so complex, we can only be arrogant (surely not humble) to think we know the right position. They ask questions like: Are we overconfident in believing that we alone have mastered the enormous complexity of this issue? And is it possible that, like James and John, we do not fully know what we are asking? They then very strangely claim that because politicians “obsessed with winning on the what of politics” shouldn’t be so confident about what they’ll accomplish because James 4:13-15 says we shouldn’t boast about tomorrow (p. 66)! I guess we should all stop talking about the direction of our country since we don’t know about tomorrow. (Of course that’s a ridiculous conclusion—the entire Bible presupposes that we should care about the just functioning of society. The what of politics. These verses are talking about not boasting in the presumed direction of your own life.)
Similarly, TAP says, “Whether we’re talking about Christmas pork or Christian politics, the Bible emphasizes that spiritual maturity means understanding that you do not know everything, and you could be wrong, so tread carefully” (p. 67). Spiritual maturity is about many things, and I suppose we could say one aspect of it is understanding that humans have finite knowledge and that we must trust in God’s perfect knowledge. That, however, is a far cry from suggesting that spiritual maturity requires someone to remain in a perpetual state of uncertainty over things God has clearly stated. In other words, we don’t need to continually think we could be wrong when God has already said. In fact, I’d say it’s a sign of spiritual immaturity for someone to waiver in their understanding of things Christians should have clarity about.
As another example, in their profile of the “Combatant” personality type, they say that what is needed for such a person is humility because “they believe confidently that their side is right, and that’s that” (p. 72). TAP criticizes this personality because “out of all the profiles, the Combatants care the most about winning. For them, the stakes are very high.” When it comes to the lives of millions of preborn babies, I absolutely care about winning and believe the stakes are very high. I believe confidently that this “side” is right because I believe confidently that the pro-life cause aligns with what God wants. None of that inherently means I (or other pro-lifers) lack humility. On issues that are insignificant, it could mean that. But TAP doesn’t make such distinctions. They avoid talking about issues Christians absolutely should care about winning on and where the stakes are high in order to broadly make the claim that we shouldn’t be so sure of ourselves.
Meanwhile, the “Disciple” (political) personality type is held up as the goal for all: “Disciples are humble: they recognize that the political world is defined by complexity, and this means that there are rarely obvious and easy answers. Disciples believe firmly in objective truth but are much less firm that they themselves have complete ownership of truth” (p. 75). Again, humility here is defined by giving deference to “complexity.” But, again, those who believe that God has revealed clear truth in the Bible should be confident in those truths. We don’t have “complete ownership” from relying on our own understanding, but rather we have “complete ownership” of those truths as God has revealed. We are to steward those truths well, not remain in uncertainty under a false notion of humility.
- TAP avoids talking about the central moral issues conservatives rightly prioritize and instead uses examples where Christians can legitimately disagree.
When they give examples of how Christians should recognize complexity, they stick to listing issues that Christians realize could legitimately have varied views: “We gravitate to the narrative that our politics are motivated by the what: what ideology, party, and policies we support. We like to think we have sorted through all the options and have chosen the best positions on issues like tax rates, foreign policy, and education. If we are Christians, we additionally want to believe that our ideas are derived from our faith in Jesus” (p. 31).
I think, to a degree, Christians can have different views on tax rates, foreign policy, and education. To use these examples lures the reader into a false sense of broader agreement. But if they had said, “best positions on issues like abortion, gender ideology, and neo-Marxism,” they know they would have lost the conservatives they hope to influence. Conservatives would look at those three examples and say there is a right position, biblically, on these things.
In another section, David French says, “The emotional grievances we feel over these very real incidents are a far more powerful factor in our political choices and loyalties than the intellectual disagreements that arise when we debate tax cuts, trade policy, or foreign affairs. And, more importantly, the debates over these issues work to reaffirm the belief that the other side is morally depraved” (p. 36). Again, he lists debatable issues.
In yet another section, the example given of opposing political ideologies is that “a liberal favors a more active government while a conservative insists on a more limited government” (p. 44). This is, of course, true, and Christians can legitimately disagree on the size of government when it comes to many subjects. But it’s disingenuous to use that as an example to contrast the two sides when the authors surely know this is not primarily what concerns conservative Christians about the left.
In trying to show that the authors do believe Christians “can still care about the what of politics,” they say this:
“All of us (David, Russell, and Curtis) have spent good parts of our professional lives advocating that Christians should support particular policies like religious liberty, racial justice, free speech, defense of weaker nations against foreign oppression, generous care for the poor, and vaccination to protect the common good. The three of us care about the what” (p. 50).
It’s telling that something like
“vaccination to protect the common good” makes the list but not things like abortion, protection for minors against transgender surgeries, support for biblical marriage, or parental rights—all issues considered “conservative.”
Shortly after, TAP makes this astounding statement:
“Here’s a question: How confident are you that you are in perfect similarity and solidarity with Jesus on the whats of Christian life? Consider the religious equivalent of ideology: say, the theology of the Trinity or the doctrine of the Eucharist. Consider the religious equivalent of policy: say, the correct approach to personal finances or sexual behavior. On these whats, how confident are you that you live in perfect similarity and solidarity with Jesus?” (p. 50)
I had to reread this several times because I thought I must be misunderstanding that they are actually putting personal finances and sexual behavior in a similar bucket of “we can’t be confident we know Jesus’s views.” It’s so mind-blowing that I still wonder if I’m misunderstanding, but I don’t see how. Of course we know Jesus’s views on sexual behavior. That’s a moral category that the Bible is clear on.
Final Thoughts
If you’ve made it this far, you may be surprised to know that there’s far more that could be said about the problems with this book (erroneous applications of Scripture as one example). But I hope this will suffice to demonstrate to those seeking discernment on this curriculum that it should be strongly avoided. If you’re a church member whose church is supporting TAP this fall, I highly encourage you to share this article with your pastor. If he’s happy with TAP’s approach and the study continues, take the time to attend the group and share your own view. Consider sharing this article with fellow participants as well. Do what you can to get more Christians thinking biblically and critically about these important subjects.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3BevfTt
Top 10 Philosophical Challenges Christian Students Face at Secular Universities with Dr. Owen Anderson
PodcastEvery college student faces difficult situations, but Christian students at secular universities often encounter unique challenges designed to dismantle their faith. How can these students (and Christians everywhere) stay strong and defend their beliefs in environments that are hostile to their worldview?
A few episodes ago, Frank sat down with Arizona State University Professor Dr. Owen Anderson, who is currently in litigation with the university due to discrimination against his Christian faith. This week, he’s back with an update and to share the 10 biggest philosophical challenges Christian students should prepare for in college. Together, Frank and Owen tackle questions like:
Tune in as Dr. Anderson unpacks the first FIVE challenges with real-life examples from ASU and other secular campuses. And don’t miss the upcoming midweek podcast for the remaining five challenges along with even more insights on how to survive college as a Christian!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Blog post: Ten Philosophical Challenges Christian Students Face at Secular University
Owen’s Website: https://drowenanderson.com/
Owen’s Substack: https://drowenanderson.substack.com/
Ten Philosophical Challenges Christian Students Face at Secular University
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsThe Christian student who attends a secular university will encounter very recognizable challenges to his/her Christian faith. As a professor who has taught in a secular university for 24 years, attended faculty meetings where professors discuss how to deconstruct the faith of Christian students, and seen firsthand the animosity administrators have toward Christianity, I am giving you an inside look at the workings of the secular university.
Did God Really Say . . . ?
I have outlined these ten challenges to illustrate the original temptation in order to show that they follow a similar strategy and that little has changed. “Did God really say? . . . You will not surely die” (Gen. 3:1). God knows the day you eat you will be as God knowing good and evil. The Tempter states a conclusion: you will not surely die (Gen. 3:5). This directly contradicts what God said.
Next, the Tempter gives an argument to support the conclusion. His argument besmirches the character of God (God knows you will be like him) and says you will not die because you will be like God. The specific way you will be like God is by knowing good and evil. God knows good and evil as the creator: he determines what is good for a human by creating them with a specific nature. Humans can never know good and evil that way. But, in order to believe God lied, they must put themselves in the place of God. This act of autonomy[1] makes them their own gods.
This same strategy is at work in each of these Ten Challenges that the Christian student will face at the secular university. They question what God said, besmirch God’s character, and teach the student to be autonomous.
In my CrossExamined podcast Frank and I discuss these steps. You will hear that we keep returning to the law of non-contradiction and self-referential absurdity. Sin is a contradiction. It doesn’t make any sense. How can the intellectuals of our age miss this?
An education should make you wise by teaching you to fear the Lord and shun evil.
Instead, current university education teaches students that sin has no consequences because they can determine what is good and evil. It presents self-contradictory philosophies as if they will bring us happiness and meaning. It tells us to go out and change the world with this nonsense.
It is a new dark age of the mind in which the secular intellectual’s only conceptual framework is “power” and they spend their time praising the basest and most perverted human behaviors. It perfectly follows the decline into debauchery outlined by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1.
Ten Challenges For Christians Going to Secular University
Number 10: Academic Skepticism.
Knowledge about the “big questions” is not possible. There are only different opinions. Each opinion is equal to every other. The biggest mistake is to think your opinion counts as knowledge, which is what Christianity does. With this comes Fideism, the teaching that faith just means “blind belief.” This is a denial that God is clearly revealed in all his works of creation and providence.
Number 9: Religious and worldview pluralism.
All religions are equal. The only problem is when one religion claims to be the only way. Comparative religion says that each religion was invented to preserve power. This can be deceptive in that it seems pro-religion, but it is only pro-religion to be anti-Christian. The student is taught to be tolerant of everything except not to tolerate exclusive truth claims. This is a denial that the only way to be restored to God is through the vicarious atonement of Christ.
Number 8: Scientism.
If knowledge is possible, it is due to naturalism that claims only material causes can explain the world. The creation does not reveal the creator. Humans are mere animals, advanced, but only animals. This is also coupled with climate change claims about the need for a centralized state to take away technology that pollutes. The student is told that the end of the world is near unless human civilization is stopped. Humans are viewed as evil and a cancer on the world. This is simple atheism. It is a denial of God the Creator, who sovereignly rules over the material world and created man in his own image to have dominion.
Number 7: Pragmatism.
What works is what is true. This is the same as saying, “What satisfies is what is true.” Universities often encourage their students to get involved in community outreach, which is reduced to having a pragmatic benefits for their community. “What satisfies” is a statement about what that person views as “good.” Pragmatism denies any “highest good.” It makes education about (1) being a contributor and not about (2) learning to fear God and develop in wisdom and godliness. This is a denial that the purpose of education is to increase our godliness.
Number 6: Higher Criticism.
The Bible was composed merely by men, re-edited through the centuries, with the purpose of preserving power and the patriarchy. This undermines the idea of sola scriptura by taking away the Bible. There is no “historical Jesus.” There are Gnostic Gospels that were kept out for political purposes. This is a denial that we need redemptive revelation and a denial of God’s work to preserve the Bible he inspired.
Number 5: Existentialism.
There is no essence or human nature. There are no universals. There is only personal experience. Each person makes their own meaning. This is used to promote infinite genders and “finding your own identity.” The world, in itself, is without meaning, and meaning is whatever we say it is. This is a denial that the world is full of meaning because it reveals God.
Number 4: Cultural Relativism.
Foucault has been cited 1.4 million times, 70% more than any other author in history.[2] He teaches that crime and insanity are culturally determined by the powerful to keep power. Students are told they only think the way they do because of how they were raised. This is used to promote political agendas like “Limits on immigration are immoral!” This is a denial that there is a moral law that applies to all humans at all times.
Number 3: Marxism of various kinds.
According to Marxism, all of history is a conflict between the oppressors and the oppressed. At first, the target is white men, but soon, you realize that the real enemy is Christianity. The last 500 years have been Christian oppression of women, slaves, the colonized, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and the list goes on. This view teaches envy as a virtue and uses the problem of evil to discredit Christians. This is a denial of the providential rule of God. This one relies on the problem of evil. All evil is due to private property and can be overcome by a centralized state that redistributes wealth.
Number 2: LGBTQ+.
The homosexual movement uses Freudian tactics to convert the student to believe that there are infinite genders, that gender is whatever you say it is, that God did not create humans as male and female, and that marriage is not between a man and a woman. The story is that the young person had to repress their sexual desires, which led to neurosis, anxiety, and depression, and it was only when they could freely express their sexual desires that they found freedom and self-love. It relies on “conversion” stories and “religious experiences” to imitate Christianity. You find your identity in your basest urges. This is a denial that gender and sex are determined by God the Creator.
Number 1: Activism.
Progress toward perfecting human nature through revolution. Oppressed groups and their allies should rise up and overthrow the systematically racist, unjust system built by Christianity. Professors teach their students that the world they live in was built by white Christian men to perpetuate inequity and that the students have been personally wronged by this system. The students are told that the noblest person is the activist who protests and, when needed, burns down the cities. The student is presented with heroes who did just that. This is a secular version of the Great Commission. It is a denial of the transformative power of the Gospel.
Be Prepared
What can a Christian student do? First, know this list and be prepared. Knowing the enemy’s strategy is half the battle. Second, the next half of the battle, is being able to show why these philosophies are in error. Here are some important ways to do that:
Footnotes:
[1] [Editor’s Note: “Autonomy” means “self-law” and refers to being self-governed. In this context, autonomy is also an implicit rejection of God’s law and governance; it is being “self-governed” in contrast to being governed by God and His laws].
[2] [Editors Note: As of 24 September 2024 Google Scholar reports 1,409,360 citations of Michel Foucault. See, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AKqYlxMAAAAJ&hl=en]
Recommended Resources:
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
How The After Party Curriculum Is Sowing Political Confusion in the Church
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsFor those who haven’t heard of it, The After Party (TAP) is a small group curriculum and corresponding book that is being heavily promoted this election year to individuals, churches, and Christian institutions (such as colleges) to counter the “dangerous trend” of evangelicals having their political identity formed by “partisan forces, not by true Biblical faith.”
What is The After Party Curriculum?
The curriculum was developed by David French (New York Times columnist), Russell Moore (Editor-in-Chief of Christianity Today), and Curtis Chang. Fewer people are familiar with Chang than with French and Moore, but for context, his most notable project was called “Christians and the Vaccine,” through which he led a national effort to convince Covid vaccine-resistant evangelicals that their “anxiety, distrust of institutions, and political polarization” was threatening the vaccine’s potential for “healing our world.”
Earlier this year, TAP made a lot of headlines when journalist Megan Basham published a First Things article detailing how the whole project was funded by hard-left foundations (“Follow the Money to The After Party”). Alisa Childers and I also did an episode on our Unshaken Faith podcast in February in which we discussed the inherent problems with progressives funding Christian curriculum (as well as other concerns about TAP).
Since then, I’ve heard from quite a few people with concerns that their church is rolling the curriculum out this fall. When they share Megan’s article or Alisa’s and my episode, some of these churches recognize the implications and change course. However, others have pushed back to say that we didn’t specifically address the content of the curriculum, only the funding. While I think the funding speaks for itself (listen to my recent podcast interview with Megan, in which we spend about 10 minutes discussing why), I want to now address—in depth—why the content itself is clearly problematic. It might seem peculiar that I would write my longest article ever on such a niche topic, but I hope that this level of detail will give pastors and concerned church members a better understanding of why this book should absolutely be avoided.
In particular, for purposes of this article, I’m evaluating the book specifically. While the book is not a necessary part of the small group curriculum, TAP creators say, “This paradigm-shifting book is designed to complement the course. Read it beforehand to discern if the course is a fit for your needs—or read it afterward to go deeper on a Jesus-centered approach to politics.” So, in their estimation, this is a deeper exploration of their approach and claims in the small group curriculum; if you agree that the book is problematic given what I say below, then the small group curriculum should be ruled out as well given their stated relationship.
What’s the Goal of TAP?
Before you can understand the key problems with TAP, it’s important to understand their stated goals. According to their website:
Reading this description and other similar marketing language TAP uses, you might think it’s pretty innocuous. People can absolutely treat each other poorly in discussing politics, we’re in the middle of a particularly contentious election season, Christians need to have their identity first and foremost in Jesus, and it can be good to be reminded that how we engage does matter.
In fact, in going to their site right now to grab a link for this article, I was shown the following pop-up:
Again, this sounds great.
From TAP’s marketing, one would think this is simply a curriculum to help Christians think about charitable communication. The creators repeatedly claim it’s non-partisan and continually emphasize this is just about the “how”—something any church should be able to get behind, or so the story goes.
But, to be blunt, I believe this is highly disingenuous marketing given the content of the book. The marketing is designed to attract churches who would like to simply encourage charitable communication, but the execution is designed to convince Christians that they shouldn’t be so conservative.
In fact, when you really see through what they’re saying in TAP—as I’ll demonstrate in a moment—it’s completely obvious why hard-left foundations funded it. Although TAP repeatedly said publicly that the funding source shouldn’t matter, any reasonable person should want to know why progressive non-Christian organizations would be interested in financing a church curriculum. TAP trivialized the importance of that question, but it’s easily answered when you read the book. Given the content, I could imagine TAP’s pitch to these progressive foundations sounding something like this:
Yes, I’m reading into their motivations. But the rest of this long article will make my case for why I believe this is a fair characterization.
On a final note before we get into the details, church leaders and other Christians who think the hypothetical pitch above represents a worthy project will, of course, love TAP. This article isn’t for them. This article is for those churches who have been deceived by the marketing into thinking this is just a curriculum about better communication and would be gravely concerned to find out it’s actually going to confuse their members into believing there’s moral equivalence between the political parties. If you and/or your church leaders believe there is no moral equivalence on major issues such as abortion, gender ideology, neo-Marxist indoctrination in K-12 schools, and all the societal manifestations of identity politics, then you’ll want to stay far away from sowing the seeds of confusion this curriculum will bring. Whether Christians choose to vote for Trump or a third party is another question, but if you recognize the danger in pushing Christians to the Democratic platform, you need to understand in detail what TAP is trying to do.
Here’s what you should know.
The book opens with a story about a couple named Sean and Emily, whose kids are asking why they don’t see Sean’s parents, Jack and Cindy, anymore. The reader learns that it’s due to “political differences.” Jack and Cindy are described as a couple who grew up where “almost everyone was White, Republican, and conservative Christian” (p. 2). Because of this background, TAP describes them as utterly unable to understand “diversity” (p. 2). Sean leaves home and in college meets “faithful Christians with and entirely different cultural perspectives from his own…His assumption that Christian identity should equate to conservative politics was weakening” (p. 3).
While Jack and Cindy are portrayed condescendingly as conservatives with no understanding of the diverse world around them, Sean’s Japanese-American wife Emily is portrayed sympathetically as someone with a “keen sympathy with those who have been excluded by our country and a sensitivity to the legacy of systemic injustice.” Emily feels over time that Jack’s repeated political comments are an attack on her personally, and she and Sean decide to not see them further. The bottom line is clear: The conservative parents with a “homogenous background” didn’t prepare them for recognizing how others differ (p. 8). TAP says, “If diversity was never present in your life, you will struggle to understand others who are different from you and to navigate a national context defined by difference” (p. 12).
Chapters later in the book, TAP revisits the story, tells how Sean finally told his dad that he was offended by his assumption that his political ideology was the only correct one, and concludes that Sean’s indignation is what finally humbled Jack.
This opening story sets the tone for the rest of the book. Conservatives are always the ones who need to learn to open their eyes to other viewpoints.
For example, David French speaks to how he went from a confident conservative to one who started questioning certain conservative positions “the more he learned” (p. 83). Nancy French (David’s wife and co-author of the book) describes her time as a ghostwriter for political leaders saying, “My clients, many of whom were churchgoing Christians, did not necessarily believe that the Jesus ethic applied to politics. They were fine with using sharp elbows, slightly twisting the truth, or unfairly characterizing an event to meet their needs. When I pushed back, they called me naïve. They said that the Left was playing hardball and we needed to as well, or we’d get left behind” (p. 63). Clearly, she’s talking specifically about conservatives here.
Similarly, Curtis Chang wrote, “In the first month of my freshman year, I met some Black Christian undergraduates who invited me to a weekly Saturday morning study group. I had grown up in a quasi-fundamentalist church that entirely avoided any teaching on politics. My new friends were the first Christians I had ever met who were trying to dig into Scripture to excavate the connections between faith and politics. They believed the central connection between these two realms was justice” (p. 139). He goes on to define justice through a progressive lens of systemic racism, and it was his supposed enlightenment about racial issues that made him less conservative. In a rare moment of balance, he did acknowledge that he then swung “way over to the left side” of the political spectrum and that he began seeing problems there too.
Here are several other examples of how TAP is not non-partisan in execution:
Bottom line: While TAP occasionally pays lip service to how people on both sides of the political aisle can err, the overriding and very clear theme is that conservatives are less sophisticated thinkers who don’t understand the complexities of other views and vote conservatively because it’s all they’ve ever associated with Christianity. TAP clearly wants people to start believing their biblical worldview doesn’t have to lead to conservative positions. It’s not non-partisan to obviously work toward moving people away from one specific political side.
While I think I’ve provided plenty of examples that represent how the book seeks to move people away from conservative views, let’s say for the sake of argument you want to give TAP the benefit of the doubt and are going to believe they are non-partisan at least in intention (even if not execution). What no one can deny is that the book is specifically anti-Trump. This shouldn’t be surprising if you know that the authors are all outspoken “never Trumpers.” And that comes through loud and clear.
Trump is mentioned multiple times, either explicitly or implicitly, all in a negative sense. January 6th in particular is in view several of those times. For example, TAP says,
I don’t recall any corresponding concern with violence from the left.
As another example, after reflecting on the Sermon on the Mount, TAP says,
It’s pretty obvious that three “never Trumpers” are talking about Trump, who is (rightly) known for problematic character in certain aspects of his life. There’s no discussion of why some conservatives chose to vote for Trump based on policy comparisons between the parties—just accusatory statements about how people voting for Trump don’t believe “spiritual values” are “adequate.”
Lest anyone think I’m reading too much into TAP’s statements about Trump, I’ll point you to David French’s response in a Holy Post podcast when he was asked why Christian sources weren’t willing to fund the curriculum. He said, “When you take on MAGA, a lot of threats and intimidation follow.” I was surprised he played his hand so obviously in that statement, but he explicitly sees TAP as taking on MAGA.
For the record, there are zero mentions of Biden in TAP. Given that this election comes down to Biden’s successor and Trump, and TAP is explicitly anti-Trump, it’s no stretch of the imagination to say that TAP is seeking to discourage Christians from thinking they should vote for the Republican candidate this year. That’s not to say they are directly claiming Christians should vote for the Democratic candidate, but rather that they want fewer Christians to consider Trump a viable choice for believers. And if fewer do, it of course implies some of them will vote for Harris. Indeed, David French recently wrote a New York Times op-ed titled, “To Save Conservativism from Itself, I Am Voting for Harris.” I didn’t have to see his op-ed to know how he would vote. I could easily gather that from TAP.
And maybe you agree with David French’s assessment. My point here is not to make a case either way. What I am saying is that it’s entirely disingenuous to market TAP as a non-partisan curriculum designed to just help Christians communicate more graciously given what I’ve summarized here. I think it’s fair to say that TAP’s highest goal is that Christians don’t vote for Trump. Everything else is a byproduct.
TAP says, for example, “We need better Christian politics. ‘Better’ doesn’t mean we need to change our political views. But it does mean we need to change our hearts” (p. 26). This is representative of the book’s repeated idea that our “how” is more important than our “what.”
I would agree that the “how” is important—basically, we shouldn’t be jerks to one another—but can we really say that the manner of our conduct is more important than the positions themselves? Can we really say that it’s more important that a Christian be kind when communicating than that they hold a pro-life position opposed to the slaughter of innocent preborn humans? Can we really say that we need to be gracious in communication more so than we need an understanding that gender ideology and its policy manifestations are abhorrent to God? Of course, we would hope that Christians do the “how” well and hold God-honoring positions for the “what.” But it’s very problematic to claim that the “how” is more important.
TAP says, “A political party is defined by the collective drive to win, to defeat the opposing party” (p. 45). This is cast as a bad thing that gets in the way of relationships. But it’s a bizarre statement. The drive to win doesn’t define a political party. A political party is “an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a particular country’s elections” (as one example definition from Wikipedia). In a country with a healthy government, there will be elections, and therefore parties. Of course, the parties want their own candidate to win and defeat the other candidate. And if one party consistently promotes an agenda that’s opposed to godly views, we should be happy that any other party would want to defeat that party. There’s nothing inherently problematic about a political party wanting to win; that’s the nature of what a political party is. But TAP repeatedly makes statements like this that I believe show a disdain for any Christian thinking there’s one right position to hold on any given issue—the “what.”
Perhaps the most egregious of all statements with respect to this issue is the following:
First of all, as Christians, we don’t singularly use the Sermon on the Mount to determine our theology even if what TAP says here were true. Romans 13, for example, is directly related to politics and clearly states that government is a God-given institution for the purpose of promoting good and restraining evil. That requires us to know what good and evil are and advocate accordingly. We can absolutely map certain issues (not all) to what is good and evil by God’s definition (abortion and gender ideology being obvious examples).
Second, part of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’s famous teaching about being salt and light. Our light is meant to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). Yes, we need to be gracious and care about relationships with people (as the book emphasizes), but that’s a matter of approach not content. The content of what we advocate for is what illuminates evil in society.
But TAP doesn’t try to help Christians understand how important their political views are in shaping a society for God’s good and against evil. Instead, TAP sees one of the greatest evils as having a “partisan mind.” For example, TAP says that the person with a partisan mind who is also a Christian “believes not only that us is right but also that us is on God’s side” (p. 84). There’s no discussion about whether or not it’s possible for a position to actually line up with God’s side—just that if you think you think you’re on God’s side, that’s a sign of a problematic “partisan mind.” The partisan mind is even compared to a “forbidden weapon” (p. 88), and it’s mentioned 21 times in the book.
Furthermore, TAP says that:
The struggle is against spiritual forces, but those spiritual forces have aims being worked out in the material world. Take gender ideology, for example. Yes, it’s a spiritual battle that people have come to believe that gender is a social construct rather than God’s good design and are mutilating their bodies accordingly. But the Democratic party is proactively promoting gender ideology as truth to the harm of many. I’m not sure the devil cares much about pitting people against each other for the sake of seeing us argue, as TAP makes it sound. But I’m very sure the devil cares to confuse society about God’s design. We need to love people enough to stand up for truth in society and advocate accordingly for policies. Yes, it’s a spiritual battle, but there are humans carrying it out. TAP knows this, though—a couple of pages later they talk glowingly about the civil rights movement (carried out by people, of course). So, it’s not disdain for all “whats,” just the ones conservatives tend to champion.
TAP gives a passing nod to the fact that “our religious commitments can and should inform our political commitments,” but it’s obvious they don’t think we should be confident our positions are the only positions that align with the Bible. Why? Apparently, humility requires it.
Much of TAP is defined by this statement: “The After Party project believes that hope and humility are crucial spiritual values for political discipleship under Jesus” (p. 56).
TAP relates the account of the disciples James and John asking Jesus to sit at His right and left in glory (Mark 10:35-45). Because Jesus rebukes them for not knowing what they ask for, TAP concludes, “Jesus’s assessment of them is clear: When it comes to your political hopes, your knowledge is incomplete. Your hope needs to be paired with humility.” I honestly have no idea how they are drawing this conclusion. To conflate James and John’s heavenly hope with the hope we have for earthly political outcomes is, again, egregious.
In another discussion of humility, TAP says, “Instead of being preoccupied with our party coming out on top, we focus on serving others” (p.64). This is simultaneously a strawman and a false dichotomy. Conservative Christians who are passionate about advocating for righteousness on top priority issues like abortion aren’t “preoccupied” in some unhealthy way as this implies—we are rightfully and gravely concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies. I can’t think of a better way to “serve others” than by working to be a voice for the preborn.
TAP wants readers to think that issues are so complex, we can only be arrogant (surely not humble) to think we know the right position. They ask questions like: Are we overconfident in believing that we alone have mastered the enormous complexity of this issue? And is it possible that, like James and John, we do not fully know what we are asking? They then very strangely claim that because politicians “obsessed with winning on the what of politics” shouldn’t be so confident about what they’ll accomplish because James 4:13-15 says we shouldn’t boast about tomorrow (p. 66)! I guess we should all stop talking about the direction of our country since we don’t know about tomorrow. (Of course that’s a ridiculous conclusion—the entire Bible presupposes that we should care about the just functioning of society. The what of politics. These verses are talking about not boasting in the presumed direction of your own life.)
Similarly, TAP says, “Whether we’re talking about Christmas pork or Christian politics, the Bible emphasizes that spiritual maturity means understanding that you do not know everything, and you could be wrong, so tread carefully” (p. 67). Spiritual maturity is about many things, and I suppose we could say one aspect of it is understanding that humans have finite knowledge and that we must trust in God’s perfect knowledge. That, however, is a far cry from suggesting that spiritual maturity requires someone to remain in a perpetual state of uncertainty over things God has clearly stated. In other words, we don’t need to continually think we could be wrong when God has already said. In fact, I’d say it’s a sign of spiritual immaturity for someone to waiver in their understanding of things Christians should have clarity about.
As another example, in their profile of the “Combatant” personality type, they say that what is needed for such a person is humility because “they believe confidently that their side is right, and that’s that” (p. 72). TAP criticizes this personality because “out of all the profiles, the Combatants care the most about winning. For them, the stakes are very high.” When it comes to the lives of millions of preborn babies, I absolutely care about winning and believe the stakes are very high. I believe confidently that this “side” is right because I believe confidently that the pro-life cause aligns with what God wants. None of that inherently means I (or other pro-lifers) lack humility. On issues that are insignificant, it could mean that. But TAP doesn’t make such distinctions. They avoid talking about issues Christians absolutely should care about winning on and where the stakes are high in order to broadly make the claim that we shouldn’t be so sure of ourselves.
Meanwhile, the “Disciple” (political) personality type is held up as the goal for all: “Disciples are humble: they recognize that the political world is defined by complexity, and this means that there are rarely obvious and easy answers. Disciples believe firmly in objective truth but are much less firm that they themselves have complete ownership of truth” (p. 75). Again, humility here is defined by giving deference to “complexity.” But, again, those who believe that God has revealed clear truth in the Bible should be confident in those truths. We don’t have “complete ownership” from relying on our own understanding, but rather we have “complete ownership” of those truths as God has revealed. We are to steward those truths well, not remain in uncertainty under a false notion of humility.
When they give examples of how Christians should recognize complexity, they stick to listing issues that Christians realize could legitimately have varied views: “We gravitate to the narrative that our politics are motivated by the what: what ideology, party, and policies we support. We like to think we have sorted through all the options and have chosen the best positions on issues like tax rates, foreign policy, and education. If we are Christians, we additionally want to believe that our ideas are derived from our faith in Jesus” (p. 31).
I think, to a degree, Christians can have different views on tax rates, foreign policy, and education. To use these examples lures the reader into a false sense of broader agreement. But if they had said, “best positions on issues like abortion, gender ideology, and neo-Marxism,” they know they would have lost the conservatives they hope to influence. Conservatives would look at those three examples and say there is a right position, biblically, on these things.
In another section, David French says, “The emotional grievances we feel over these very real incidents are a far more powerful factor in our political choices and loyalties than the intellectual disagreements that arise when we debate tax cuts, trade policy, or foreign affairs. And, more importantly, the debates over these issues work to reaffirm the belief that the other side is morally depraved” (p. 36). Again, he lists debatable issues.
In yet another section, the example given of opposing political ideologies is that “a liberal favors a more active government while a conservative insists on a more limited government” (p. 44). This is, of course, true, and Christians can legitimately disagree on the size of government when it comes to many subjects. But it’s disingenuous to use that as an example to contrast the two sides when the authors surely know this is not primarily what concerns conservative Christians about the left.
In trying to show that the authors do believe Christians “can still care about the what of politics,” they say this:
It’s telling that something like
Shortly after, TAP makes this astounding statement:
I had to reread this several times because I thought I must be misunderstanding that they are actually putting personal finances and sexual behavior in a similar bucket of “we can’t be confident we know Jesus’s views.” It’s so mind-blowing that I still wonder if I’m misunderstanding, but I don’t see how. Of course we know Jesus’s views on sexual behavior. That’s a moral category that the Bible is clear on.
Final Thoughts
If you’ve made it this far, you may be surprised to know that there’s far more that could be said about the problems with this book (erroneous applications of Scripture as one example). But I hope this will suffice to demonstrate to those seeking discernment on this curriculum that it should be strongly avoided. If you’re a church member whose church is supporting TAP this fall, I highly encourage you to share this article with your pastor. If he’s happy with TAP’s approach and the study continues, take the time to attend the group and share your own view. Consider sharing this article with fellow participants as well. Do what you can to get more Christians thinking biblically and critically about these important subjects.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3BevfTt
Three Bad Arguments for Euthanasia
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsPolling sometimes suggests that the UK public is in favor of ‘assisted dying.’ This is an illusion, caused in many cases by people not knowing what ‘assisted dying is.’ A recent poll showed that only 42% of the public understood what ‘assisted dying’ refers to, with 10% thinking it meant hospice-type care and 42% believing it meant stopping treatment.
There is no legal or ethical mandate that a terminally ill person must be kept alive “at all costs.” There is, however, a major difference between withdrawing medical treatment and thereby allowing a patient to die of his or her own medical condition and intentionally ending a patient’s life.
What Is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia (as well as assisted suicide) is most basically understood as the lethal dose of drugs to deliberately end a life. Here is what euthanasia is not:
But as well as the simple misunderstandings people have about what ‘assisted dying’ is – there are some often repeated arguments for euthanasia that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Three bad arguments for euthanasia
Reason #1: We euthanize our pets. The precise reason that we might euthanize a pet but not a human is because a human is not a pet! Once we reduce human beings to mere animals, a host of horrendous evils are bound to follow. Have you ever heard of the saying “treated like animals”? Human beings are a unique category of being, and so it is a dangerous category error to argue for human beings to be euthanized based on how we treat our pets. Human beings are not pets.
Reason #2: A patient can become a heavy financial strain. A price tag cannot be placed on human life – we cannot argue that life must be taken in order to save money. A human being’s value is not determined by their medical bill but by the fact that they are a human being. Human dignity is levelled across the scope of the entire human race, and those of us who are ill and inhibited are no less human than those of us who are not. Can you imagine the upheaval if it were argued that poor people are less valuable than rich people because they are more of a burden on the state? “Financial strain” is an unethical reason to end a human life.
Reason #3: People need the autonomy to choose to die in peace. Euthanasia is not necessary to satisfy this reason. The benefits of modern medicine mean that terminally ill people can generally choose to die in peace with effective use of palliative care (i.e., hospice). For people whose illness is no longer curable, palliative care supports quality of life and pain-management enabling patients to enjoy their final moments in peace—without killing themselves. Modern medicine makes available sufficient treatment to ethically treat patients without killing them, and thus the call for euthanasia (based off reason #3) is obsolete.
Euthanasia advocates do not have the moral high ground.
To appear convincing, pro-euthanasia arguments (see above) have to (Reason 1) de-escalate human dignity to the value of animals, (Reason 2) place a price-cap on human worth, and (Reason 3) argue that suicide is a good option in some circumstances.
No such position which advocates for these three things can be said to be taking the ethical high ground. And here is the major ethical problem that surfaces once euthanasia is legalized: The legalization of euthanasia sends the message that you can justifiably determine that your life is not worth living.
What message would the legalization of euthanasia send to someone who has depression? The whole issue with depressed people who go on to commit suicide is that they are mentally convinced that they are stuck with a terminal condition from which they will never be able to escape, unless they end their lives.
How can we promote positive mental health for people who struggle with depression, and strive to see them pursue life; if we have another sub-set of the population whom we deem worthy of ending their life over their suffering?
The legalization of euthanasia, for a sub-set of the population, sets an extremely dangerous precedent for other vulnerable members of society. Innocent lives are not ours to take. We are morally obligated not to kill ourselves or others. Euthanasia is always in some form of homicide, and so ethically, it should be prohibited.
A Christian view of suffering
Much can be learned through suffering. Pro-euthanasia arguments, perhaps understandably, tend to emphasize avoiding of suffering, even at the cost of one’s life. But this is not a Christian view of suffering. James 1:2-4 (ESV) says, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.”
And Romans 5:3-4 (ESV) says, “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.”
Far from being an evil to be avoided at all costs, suffering can be a time for refinement, and character building, no matter how old we are.
References:
[1] [Editor’s note: A distinction can be drawn here between (1) “life-support” and (2) “assisted living.” Life-support refers to technological measures which artificially sustain someone’s life when, otherwise, their heart, lungs, brain, (etc.) would not be able to do it. A ventilator would be an example – since it “breathes” for them, doing the work that lungs should be doing. Meanwhile, Assisted living refers to the use of different measures, technological or not, to help sustain someone’s basic needs even though their organs can sustain life. For example, an oxygen tube, intravenous hydration, or a feeding tube. When life support is removed the person dies of natural causes. When assisted living is terminated the individual starves or suffocates to death.
Recommended Resources:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3XCfbSL
Open Borders: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? | with Hedieh Mirahmadi
PodcastHow do you express concerns about illegal immigration without sounding like a racist? And is it irrational to be Islamophobic? Speaking out against open border policies can get you canceled, but should that fear outweigh the risks of unvetted, undocumented immigrants flooding into the country? Is the real goal of unchecked immigration to weaken Christianity? If so, can Christians and Conservatives do anything in an attempt to sustain the infrastructure of America before it’s too late?
Picking up right where they left off in the last podcast, Frank and Hedieh Mirahmadi continue their discussion about the potential destruction that the West is facing in light of mass immigration and the rise of radical Islam. How could America do a better job of vetting people from Muslim countries? Why is the far left’s alliance with Islam illogical? How has the Biden-Harris Administration emboldened antisemitism? Does Trump have the power to take down the Deep State if he wins the next election? They’ll tackle all these topics and much more in this special follow-up episode!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Hedieh’s website: Ressurect Ministry
Former Undercover Counter-Terrorism Agent Speaks Out | with Hedieh Mirahmadi
PodcastWith the encroaching geopolitical movement of Islam and the influx of immigrants from all over the world through our open borders, what future lies ahead for the West, and where are we when it comes to national security? Are we more vulnerable to terrorism today than we were before 9/11? Have we learned from the past, or is America on the verge of repeating history?
Buckle up for an eye-opening discussion with Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi, a former Muslim and undercover counterterrorism operative who has served five presidents and worked with the U.S. government for over 20 years. Hedieh will share her unique insights into the U.S. efforts to combat Islamic jihadist extremism in Muslim nations along with her concerns surrounding the shift in focus from Islamic terrorism to domestic terrorism. During their conversation, Frank and Hedieh will answer questions like:
Don’t miss the upcoming midweek episode where Hedieh and Frank further explore the rise of radical Islam, its implications for the Church, and what can be done to protect the West! And be sure to visit Hedieh’s website to learn more about her work and stay informed on these critical issues!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
ResurrectMinistry.com
Key Tenets of Marxism VS America’s Philosophical Foundations
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsI’ve been fascinated by Marxism since my parents first told me about the Cold War we were living in when I was almost 10-years-old (1983). I remember asking them why the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons aimed at us. After my parents reassured me that we had just as many nuclear missiles aimed back at them — ensuring that they will not use these weapons against us (peace through strength) — they explained it to me like I was 10-years-old (because I was). While not using these exact words, my parents basically told me that the Soviet Union was based upon a philosophy called Marxism which is logically incompatible with America’s theological and philosophical foundations. This sparked a desire to learn more about our fundamental disagreements.
I wanted to know about America’s philosophical foundations. I wanted to know more about Marxism. So, over the past four decades I have studied Marxism off and on as a hobby. While I make no claims to be a Marxist scholar, as a philosophically inclined analytic theologian — who has applied the tools of my trade to this hobby — I do think it’s fair to say that I know enough about Marxism to have an informed conversation on the matter. So, since my parents provided me with a nice introduction to Marxism four decades ago, allow me to pay it forward and provide an introduction here.
Marxism 101
In a nutshell, Marxism is a socio-political and economic ideology developed by Karl Marx (hence the name “Marxism”) and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. As Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, his philosophy emphasizes the role of struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor in societal development. Marx advocated for a classless, stateless society where the means of production are owned collectively.
That might look good on paper, but Marxism has a rich history of utter failure, poverty, tyranny, death, and destruction. Indeed, if we are comparing death counts, Marxism makes Hitler’s Nazi Party seem tame. While Hitler’s Holocaust of evil murdered six million Jews, those putting Marx’s philosophy into action have killed well-over 100 million people! Yet, while we do not hear that we’ve got to keep trying Naziism again and again, Marxists demand that despite repeated failures, along with more and more death and destruction, we must keep trying to implement Marxism again, and again, and over again.
The preceding words are attributed to Albert Einstein, but whoever originally said it, these words ring true. Yet, Karl Marx’s philosophy — which promises a better tomorrow — always leads to the same outcome, with the “useful idiots” who helped to usher Marxists into power, now trying to escape their new “utopia.” (The term “useful idiots” is not a pejorative term, but a Marxist term for a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda.)
Konstan Kisin was fortunate enough to escape Marxism and puts it this way:
Surprisingly, many useful idiots living within the borders of America — while enjoying a protection of their unalienable God-given rights — seem to think that they should use their freedom to destroy their freedom by making progress toward a Marxist utopia. The historical death count alone should prevent any sane person from advancing the cause of Marxism today, yet key tenets of Marx’s philosophy are alive and well.
Marxism’s Key Tenets
Here’s a short list of key ingredients included in Marx’s philosophy:
1. Class Struggle: Marxism is basically a worldview that posits a necessary conflict that only Marxism can solve. Marx said that the history of class struggles were between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class). Today, the language typically used (and that most of us will recognize) is the struggle between the “oppressed” and the “oppressor.” The ultimate goal is for the proletariat (or “the oppressed”) to overthrow the bourgeoisie (“the oppressor”), leading to a classless society.
Marx utilized the oppressor/oppressed narrative in the 1840s when he co-authored the Communist Manifesto. Today, you will hear the exact same language used by those at the top of the Black Lives Matter organization. This makes sense since the leaders of the movement have proudly admitted that they are “trained Marxists.”
2. Abolition of Private Property: Marxists advocate for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, etc.) and propose that these should be owned collectively by the community or ruling government.
As the World Economic Forum (WEF) recently said, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”
3. Collectivism and State Control: Marxism starts with Socialism and emphasizes the central role of the government in controlling and distributing resources until the state itself “withers away” and transforms into full-blown Communism.
4. Critique of Capitalism: Marxism views capitalism as an exploitative system where the bourgeoisie (or the oppressor) extracts surplus value from the labor of the proletariat (or the oppressed), leading to inequality and social injustice. Thus, the Marxist advances what they refer to as “social justice,” which seeks equity (equal outcomes) as opposed to equal rights and opportunity.
Kamala Harris points out the difference between equality (equal rights and opportunity) as opposed to equity — “all ending up in the same place” (equal outcomes) in this short video.
5. Revolutionary Change: Marxism advocates for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system, rather than reforming it through gradual or democratic means. We have seen this throughout history. “Political power grows out of a barrel of a gun” are infamous words uttered by Chinese Marxist named Mao Zedong. This has happened multiple times in world history, but most of us are old enough to remember that Black Lives Matter led a summer full of “mostly peaceful” protests combined with extremely violent riots in 2020 (that made January 6th look like a guided tour of the Capitol building). We saw a snapshot of what trained Marxists are willing to do in order to destroy “the system” in hopes to “Build Back Better.”
Karl Marx died in 1883, but his ideas have evolved and advanced at the Frankfurt School in Germany which exists for the purpose of advancing Marxism. This provided the foundation for the idea known as Critical Theory, and what has been advanced recently as Critical Race Theory (CRT). It’s vital to recognize this “theory” has deep roots in Marxism.
*Click here to read a copy of a speech I gave to the Kearney Public Schools Board of Education in 2022 about the dangers of CRT.
America’s Philosophical Foundations
The key tenets of Marxism are in opposition to America’s theological foundations stated in the Declaration of Independence and enemies of the United States Constitution. That is to say, the foundational documents of the United States are based upon principles that are incompatible with Marxism:
1. Individual Equal Rights and Private Property: The Declaration of Independence emphasizes God-given equal and “unalienable rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” which are closely tied to the protection of individual rights and private property (starting with the private property of your own body). The Constitution enshrines these rights through various amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights. Marxism, in contrast, seeks to abolish private property and emphasizes collective rights and property over individual rights and property.
2. Limited Government: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of limited government, with checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power. When the government is smaller, We the People have more freedom. Marxism, on the other hand, advocates for a powerful state — ultimately a dictator — to control resources and enforce equity (equal outcomes) upon all people, regardless of their personal choices.
3. Democratic Processes: The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic and the U.S. Constitution is based on democratic principles where change is achieved through We the People in an electoral processes and the rule of law. As noted above, however, Marxism often advocates for revolutionary change, which can involve the use of horrible violence and the overthrow of existing governmental structures.
This is one reason why the Second Amendment (2A) of the U.S. Constitution is so important. America’s Founders realized that the human right of self-defense — and the defense of loved ones — serves as an insurance of all of our other rights and is “necessary to the security of a free state.” This makes it clear that the 2A is not about “hunting rights,” it’s about security and the ability to oppose enemies of the Constitution; foreign or domestic (this might explain why progressives, who are willing to use violence to overthrow the freedoms of American citizens, often seem frustrated by the 2A).
4. Capitalism: The American system is built on a capitalist economic model, which Marxism fundamentally opposes. The protection of free markets and private enterprise is central to the U.S. economy, whereas Marxism seeks to dismantle capitalism entirely.
These fundamental differences lead to an inherent opposition between Marxist ideology and the principles enshrined in America’s theological and philosophical foundational documents. These two views are logically incompatible. The American system prioritizes individual human freedom (my favorite topic), private ownership of property, and a government that serves and protects objective and unalienable human rights, whereas Marxism seeks to replace these structures with a collectivist system focused on equity and the forced communal ownership (ultimately through the barrel of a gun) of all resources and everything else.
I believe that America’s philosophical foundations are objectively true (i.e., they correspond to reality). Thus, in order to avoid painful collisions with reality, we ought to strive to correspond to reality. In a nutshell, I affirm Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence:
Accordingly, objectively good governments will not violate a human’s God-given rights. Indeed, an objectively good government will use its power to protect and fight for the God-given rights of humanity.
Since I possess knowledge that Christianity is true (given a cumulative case of evidence), I also know that Jefferson was right. Humanity was created on purpose and for specific purposes. This places us in an epistemic position to know exactly what our God-given rights are. This is also why it’s vital to study the entirety of God’s inspired Word (read your Bible)! Ultimately, Bible-believing Christians know that humans have God-given rights that ought not be violated by anyone – including governments.
In addition to the four philosophical principles of American philosophy, listed above, House Speaker Mike Johnson provides seven key essentials (some overlap with the above list) that American Conservatives — those seeking to conserve America’s philosophical and theological foundations — uphold:
Progressives, as opposed to conservatives, have different goals. Whenever one refers to themselves as a “progressive,” I always ask them to clarify and be specific about what they are “progressing away from” and what they are progressing toward. I’ve had these conversations on many college campuses around the country and it seems that those who refer to themselves as “progressive” tend to make progress away from America’s philosophical foundations and often find themselves on a journey toward what they have been promised: a Marxist utopia.
This utopia can only exist if America’s foundation can be destroyed. Or in the words of Kamala Harris:
Make no mistake, Marxists have a religious devotion to being “unburdened by what has been” (America’s philosophical foundations). Despite horrendous failures over and over again, a Marxist utopia is what they believe “can be,” if they just try it one more time.
A Theological View of Marxism
Marxism is not merely a “shallow philosophy” (Colossians 2:8). As a theologian, I believe it is fair to refer to Marxism as a religion or a religious substitute. Of course, Marx did say that “religion is the opium of the people” so, although Marx himself would probably not refer to Marxism as a “religion,” it does share striking similarities with religion. Indeed, it seems to be an anti-Christ religion.
Just as Buddhism is often referred to as an “atheistic religion,” Marxism also seems to be worthy of that label. This is because it steps into the theological lane and attempts to provide answers to the problem of evil, sin, atonement, and forgiveness.
I have published two books and an academic journal article destroying particular arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Namely, all the problems of evil. I highly recommend reading the chapter I contributed to the book, Faith Examined (Wipf and Stock, 2023) where I show that if Christianity is true, combined with God’s necessary omniscience, then all the so-called “problems of evil” melt away. But, as philosopher Owen Anderson notes in his article, “Mere Marxism,” the Marxist seeks to take a non-theological approach to addressing why evil exists in the world. The problem is that some people have more stuff than other people. The Marxist’s answer is that the places where there is not as much suffering have exploited the places that have more suffering. Dr. Anderson writes:
Of course, anyone with minimal knowledge of history knows this is historical revisionism (see, How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt). As Anderson notes, before these lands were “colonized” by Europeans they were . . .
So there is a “problem of sin” in Marxism, and some are born sinners and some are born sinned against. But don’t worry, just as Jesus provides good news so that you can be set free from sin, the Marxist religion also provides atonement for your sins (more theology) if you happened to be born into the class of “oppressor.” Of course, this atonement is not through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but rather, Marxism is a religion of works. If you were born into the class of the sinful oppressor, you can be saved and make the world a better place by giving lots of your money and time to progressive causes — along with much virtue signaling.
Anderson notes that
Now that we’ve shown Marxism to meet the requirements for being a religion, I’m sure the ACLU will be consistent and demand the separation of Church and State.
So, not only is Marxism the enemy of America’s Philosophical Foundations, it’s also opposed to The Law of Christ and the gospel message. Marx seemed to realize this inherent contradiction between these two worldviews when he decried that “religion was the opium of the people.” Thus, religion — especially Christianity — opposed the goals of Marxism. After all, if the ultimate goal of Marxism is equity (equal outcomes despite personal choices) it opposes the teachings of Jesus and the Law of Christ.
This is why, in order to transform America into a Marxist utopia, one of the first steps was to advance arguments raised against the knowledge of God. This is also why those advancing Marxist ideals have spent so much time focused on the growing number of theologians and philosophers who “destroy every argument raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5) and provide a cumulative case of arguments and evidence supporting the existence of God and the truth of the historical resurrection.
When Christianity thrives, Marxism dies.
Conclusion
This article briefly surveyed some key principles of Marxism and compared and contrasted them with key principles of America’s philosophical and theological foundations. We have seen that these two worldviews are logically incompatible and thus, natural enemies. Indeed, when one takes the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution . . .
. . . one promises to defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. Marxism is at the top of the list of these enemies.
Although the evil of Marxism presents itself in physical form against your neighbors, loved ones, and the least of these (Mark 12:30-31; Matthew 25:31-46), while promising to help them, it comes to destroy them. We must remember where this evil comes from. The Apostle Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:
Of course, these spiritual forces of evil in which Paul speaks have infected the minds of many humans. We must seek to reason together (Isaiah 1:18) and speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) as we strive to free their minds (which is what FreeThinking Ministries is all about). We must always speak the truth, but we should begin with gentleness and kindness. If those we love refuse to listen — and as this evil becomes a clear and present danger to them and others — then Jesus and Paul give us examples of how the most loving thing to do is to stop worrying about being nice or coming across in humility. At that point, speaking the hard truth with cold facts is often the most loving thing a person can do for those refusing to see this danger.
Stay awake!
Bottom line: We must call out the evils of this “shallow philosophy” (some have referred to it as the “woke mind virus”) which has taken so many captive (Colossians 2:8). Your neighbors, your loved ones, and the least of these depend on your voice. With this in mind, do not be silent in the face of evil! Be loud for the sake of love.
Much more can be said on this topic. Don’t worry, although this article was written as an introduction to the topic, FreeThinking Ministries has many articles and videos about the evils of Marxism (including several from Phil Bair, the author of Marx Attacks). More are forthcoming. Stay tuned.
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and live in freedom (Galatians 5:13).
Recommended Resources:
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)
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
Original Blog Posted Here: https://bit.ly/47wepLU
Where Do Democrats Stand on Major Issues? | with Wintery Knight and Desert Rose
PodcastChristian apologists Wintery Knight and Desert Rose return to the program to continue their conversation on ‘How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics.’ On the last episode, Knight and Rose discussed socialism, abortion, and the past voting record of Kamala Harris. Today, they cover in rapid-fire-succession where the Democratic platform stands on other “important matters of the law” (Mt. 23:23) that will affect the lives of people and the wellbeing of our country.
What is the Equality Act and what will be its negative implications on Christians and religious freedom? Why won’t price controls work? Where does the Harris administration stand when it comes to law enforcement and public safety? Is being compassionate the purpose of government? What does the current data say about immigration, sex trafficking, and open borders? What policies led to a 98.2% increase in the cost of electricity in California? And more.
Stay tuned for a future episode that covers the pros and cons of the Republican platform, and be sure to check out VoteYourFaith.net for more great resources on how to make a biblically informed decision when you’re standing in the voting booth this November.
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
BOOK: Money, Greed, and God by Jay Richards
WEBSITE: Wintery Knight
WEBSITE: An Affair With Reason
PDF with article links: https://bit.ly/LoveYourNeighborThroughPolitics
Witchcraft on Campus? Dr. Owen Anderson Exposes ASU’s Anti-Christian Agenda
PodcastFor this special edition midweek podcast episode, Dr. Owen Anderson returns to expose more of what’s going on at Arizona State University and how it’s specifically singling out Christian and conservative faculty members. Last week, they talked about how Owen became the target of ASU when he was ordered to accept their DEI training and change the course syllabus for his introduction to Christianity course. In this episode, they discuss the infiltration of Marxism (and witchcraft!) that Dr. Anderson has personally witnessed during his time at the largest state college in the United States.
How is the Honors College at ASU promoting witchcraft? How is Christianity the real enemy of people promoting this on campus? Why is cultural Marxism attractive to a lot of Christians and why is philosophy so important these days? Why doesn’t Dr. Anderson just quit his job and teach at a Christian school? What should students do to prepare to go to a secular university? All this and more will be discussed in this BONUS episode of the ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ podcast!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Owen’s Website: https://drowenanderson.com/
Owen’s Substack: https://drowenanderson.substack.com/
The Early Martyrs Were Cross Examined to Death
4. Is the NT True?Skeptics often challenge believers by claiming that the “evidence” for Christianity would never hold up in a courtroom. It’s hearsay, they contend, and since these witnesses can’t be cross-examined, the case would never even see the inside of a courtroom. For many unfamiliar with the legal system, this challenge seems solid. After all, why should we trust our eternity to a message that wouldn’t pass muster in a court dealing with comparatively less important issues?
Christianity On Trial
A bit of reflection shows the problem with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn’t take into consideration that we know many things that could never be “proven” according to the rules of evidence in a courtroom. Just about any historical event that is beyond the lifetime of living persons would suffer from similar problems, as well as problems of authenticating documents and physical evidence relating to the case. Yet, we have little doubt that these events occurred.
More importantly, the legal system provides the right to see and confront one’s accusers, and the related right to cross-examine them about their testimony, for a reason – “confrontation” is a reliable way to test evidence, to ensure that it is credible. But there are other ways to assure oneself that a person’s testimony is credible. In the case of the early martyrs, the way they demonstrated credibility – steadfastness in the face of persecution – is even more reliable.
On the Witness Stand
Consider: if a witness testifies that he saw the defendant point a gun at the victim and fire the fatal shot, the defense will want the right to test the reliability of the testimony. But what will they test? Generally speaking, the prosecution will take one of two possibles tacks. They will either, show that the witness is mistaken the witness is lying. Either way, their testimony isn’t very damaging to the defendant.
In preparing to cross examine, a skilled attorney need more oratory. He also needs to plot out an approach. If he wants to show that the witness isn’t mistaken, he will inquire into the types of things that could cause a mistake: how well does the witness know the defendant? How long did he see him? Were there impediments to clear viewing? How did the stress of the event affect the witness’ ability to perceive the event? Were drugs or alcohol a factor and if so, to what extent did they effect the witness’ ability to observe and record what occurred? Each of these avenues may prove productive in undercutting the conclusion the witness reached.
But if the witness says the defendant is his brother and he saw him a few feet away with nothing blocking his view, then alleging that the witness is “mistaken” will not be very productive. That leaves the other possibility, that the witness is lying. What is the relationship of the witness to the defendant? Does the witness stand to gain financially or otherwise by seeing the defendant convicted? What is the witness’s reputation in the community for honesty and integrity? Perhaps the witness is a “jailhouse snitch” who is trying to get out from another charge by telling the police what they want to hear. Or, by contrast, maybe the witness is the defendant’s brother who just happened to be present when the defendant committed the crime and is unwilling to lie for him.
Could the Martyrs Have been Telling the truth?
So, when skeptic’s refuse to even consider the testimony of the early martyrs, saying it’s hearsay, they are misunderstanding the point of cross-examination. The strength of a person’s testimony can be shown even more reliably by their behavior as it relates to that testimony. To put it bluntly: is he willing to die for it?
The skeptic will immediately object: but many people are willing to die for false beliefs? Yes, that’s true, but that is not the situation when we consider what those first martyrs faced. This group of men and women knew Jesus and witnessed the fact and circumstances of his death. This was their testimony: he died a gruesome death, he was later placed in a sealed and guarded tomb, and after three days he began to interact with them in a resurrected body.
If we had them on the witness stand, which of the challenges would we pursue. Mistake would not take us very far. No attorney with any sense would claim that Jesus survived the crucifixion or that the man the apostles saw after the resurrection was not Jesus. Jesus was well known to these individuals, and they witnessed the “effectiveness” of Rome’s favored way of ensuring a tortured and humiliating death. The tomb was empty and even if an imposter had tried to play Jesus’ role, he would not have been able to fool the apostles. That would be like telling the defendant’s brother that he actually saw someone else commit the murder – not a likely way to persuade anyone.
Perhaps then the apostles were lying. They knew Jesus had died on the cross but they wanted the world to believe that he had escaped death. They knew this was false but persisted anyway. How would a skilled attorney cross examine these witnesses? He would begin with the basics: is there a motive to lie? Do the apostles stand to benefit in some way, either financially, emotionally, or through the acquisition of power? Do the apostles have some animus against the “other side?” Are there prior inconsistent statements or actions that would undercut their present testimony? How committed are they to the position they are taking?
Having cross-examined countless witnesses, I for one would not want to take on these witnesses. Committed? They went to their deaths rather than retract their claim – “okay, you’re right, we just really wished that he was the Messiah, so we fabricated this whole thing.”
Prior inconsistencies? Quite the contrary. The change in their behavior shortly after Jesus’ death – from meek and broken to brave and bold – corroborates their testimony.
Animus against the other side? They preached a message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation. They gave unto Caesar the things of Caesar.
Motive for gain? Hardly. Insisting that Jesus was the Messiah brought them nothing; in many cases it took from them what little they had. They gained no position, nor power, nor wealth, nor anything else of earthly value.
Where does the cross-examiner go? Indeed, nothing they did on a witness stand could possibly add to the force of their “testimony” by remaining faithful . . . unto death.
They Wouldn’t Have Died for Lie
The missionary Jim Elliott once said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” Having witnessed the risen Lord, the early martyrs had a level of confidence in their message that few today can manage. They were neither fools nor liars. Indeed, it is rather the fool who refuses to acknowledge the power of their witness.
Recommended Resources:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek
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.