Last year, I wrote an article called “7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign,” in which I critically responded to the $100 million advertising campaign featuring a website, billboards in major cities, a book, and ads that have been viewed more than 300 million times. Perhaps most visibly, the campaign’s ads were featured in last year’s Super Bowl. When thousands of people went searching for more information on it, my article came up, and it went viral—actually pulling down my site at one point! Clearly, a lot of people are interested in knowing more about the nature of these ads.
Fast forward to 2024. Super Bowl Sunday was on February 11. And He Gets Us once again ran ads generating widespread curiosity. Given the reach of the campaign and high interest level, I wanted to do an updated evaluation of what He Gets Us is doing today. To that end, I’m going to answer four questions:
- Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?
- Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the rightJesus?
- Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?
- Does the He Gets Us campaign direct people to theologically solid churches for continuing their search for truth?
There are three things that will inform my answers. First is my professional background in marketing (I have an MBA in marketing and am a former adjunct marketing professor). Since this is a campaign aimed at “marketing” Jesus, that background is particularly relevant. Second is my evaluation of the publicly available He Gets Us content (the website and YouVersion reading plans). I have not read the He Gets Us book, so that isn’t part of what I’m responding to. Third is a recent interview campaign consultant Ed Stetzer did with Biola professors Scott Rae and Sean McDowell on Biola’s “Think Biblically” podcast (Stetzer is the Dean of Biola’s Talbot School of Theology). While Stetzer says he is not a spokesman for the campaign, he has been closely involved, so his comments are helpful for an insider view of the goals and strategies.
1. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?
Stetzer says that the people who eventually started the campaign had become concerned “that the perception of Christianity had suffered and people weren’t necessarily considering who Jesus was. And they would like for people to consider who he was, who he is.” They then brought in market researchers who found that skeptics were open to considering who Jesus was (I’d love to know more about that, but no further information was noted). Stetzer emphasized repeatedly in the interview that the very narrow goal of the campaign is to reach those skeptics. Ultimately, He Gets Us wants to build a bridge from people seeing the ads to learning more by going to the website and ultimately signing up for a Bible reading plan and/or asking to be connected to a church.
So, in short, the goal is very specifically to get skeptics interested in Jesus. That’s a very worthy goal, especially if you have millions of dollars to do it with. My first question is, does the campaign successfully meet that objective?
While I don’t know the statistics on how many people have visited the He Gets Us website as a result of the ads, Stetzer says over 600,000 people have signed up for the reading plans and “hundreds of thousands” have been referred to churches. So, as a surface-level answer to the question, it certainly seems reasonable to say that yes, the campaign has generated interest. If the goal was to get people to one of those two action points—signing up for the Bible reading plan and/or asking for a church referral—then marketers have achieved at least some success. (Whether the numbers justify the money spent is a different question that I’m not evaluating here.)
2. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right Jesus?
From a marketing perspective, there is a predictable funnel that people go through before taking action (e.g., making a purchase). It starts with becoming awareof something, which then sometimes converts to interest, which then sometimes converts to desire for action, which then sometimes converts to action. Marketers know that if you want people to take action—to get to the bottom of the funnel—you have to first take them through those stages, and those stages have to be tailored toward the action you want.
In this case, if you are marketing in order to generate interest in Jesus, you want to be sure you’re generating interest in the right Jesus (a correct portrayal) if you want that to lead to the action you desire. This is where I believe the campaign fails in a serious way.
As I said in last year’s article, the Jesus of this campaign is nothing more than an inspiring human who relates to our problems and cares a whole lot about a culturally palatable version of social justice (the exception to this is in parts of the reading plan, which I’ll address in the next point). This has not changed since I last wrote. My points then remain true now: The fact that Jesus “gets us,” stripped from the context of His identity, is meaningless; Jesus is presented as an example, not a Savior; The campaign reinforces the problematic idea that Jesus’s followers have Jesus all wrong; And the campaign reinforces what culture wants to believe about Jesus while leaving out what culture doesn’t want to believe. I won’t expand on these points here since you can read my prior article for that analysis.
But I do want to say more this time about who the campaign is clearly targeting. Stetzer mentioned that it’s “skeptics,” but a close evaluation (or even not so close evaluation) of the campaign makes it clear it’s not all skeptics they have in mind. This is crucial to understand. It’s a very specific segment of skeptics—it’s progressives who primarily view the world through a lens of social justice (and specifically the critical theory model of social justice, which places everyone in oppressor/oppressed buckets).
If you’ve never immersed yourself in the world of this viewpoint, you might not recognize how laden the content is with language and framing designed to appeal very specifically to this group. If they were targeting just any skeptic, you wouldn’t see such a specific framing of Jesus in progressive terminology; there are plenty of skeptics who aren’t beholden to progressive social justice thinking.
For example, they use hashtags with words that have a specific connotation to a progressive audience, even if the campaign isn’t necessarily using them in the same way (on the home page, you see #inclusive #activist #struggle #refugee #justice #outrage #bias #judgment). They also frame their content in terms that are commonly used in progressive social critiques. For example, the words “religious leaders” or “religious people” are often used with a negative connotation, which serves to reinforce the notion that it’s bad to be “religious.” That was never Jesus’s claim (see my podcast with Alisa Childers). There are recurring references to concepts like lived experience, power dynamics, oppression, racial conflict, toxic systems, corruption, and political conflict—all progressive focal points. That’s not to say that none of these things are actually problems, but rather that it’s clear they’re focusing on progressives given their obvious focus on progressive concerns.
So why is this a concern? I have no concern at all with choosing progressives as your target audience. But I have a lot of concern with the nature of the campaign given this target and what they are likely to take from it. Here are three key reasons why.
First, the campaign will likely lead many progressives to conclude that they (still) like Jesus and (still) hate Christians. To be honest, I’m not very convinced that we even have a problem with Jesus’s reputation in culture. People tend to like Jesus because they don’t understand all that He taught. As far as the average person is concerned, Jesus was a loving guy who hated “the system” and can serve as a good moral example—and that’s exactly how the He Gets Us website portrays Him. People, however, tend to have disdain for Christians when we present the fullness of what the Bible teaches, particularly on moral subjects. So, if a progressive sees this content and never gets to a Bible reading plan or church connection, they’ve taken away that Jesus was the great guy they thought He was and that all those Christians today who talk about things they don’t like are still the problem.
Second, the campaign will solidify the idea in progressives’s minds that their social justice lens of the world is the lens through which Jesus sees it, too. It would be one thing if marketers used progressive language to present a full picture of Jesus. But when you just use progressive language without presenting the full picture, it leaves the impression that their language—representing a whole underlying worldview structure built on critical theory—is correct. Those who don’t get to the desired Bible or church action points will simply come away thinking that Jesus was a social justice warrior just like they are (with all that implies to them).
It would be one thing if marketers used progressive language to present a full picture of Jesus. But when you just use progressive language without presenting the full picture, it leaves the impression that [Progressive Christianity] is correct.
Is that really a big problem? Yes, yes it is. It is this model of oppressed/oppressor thinking that leads progressives to claim the gender binary is oppressive, that white people are inherently racist, that abortion is a form of justice for women, that heterosexuality is an oppressive norm, and that we need to abolish the nuclear family. If this campaign even inadvertently suggests through a social justice veneer that this is the lens through which Jesus would have seen the world, that is a disastrous consequence.
It is this model of oppressed/oppressor thinking that leads progressives to claim the gender binary is oppressive, that white people are inherently racist, that abortion is a form of justice for women, that heterosexuality is an oppressive norm, and that we need to abolish the nuclear family
Third, the campaign can easily be construed to affirm theologically progressive Christianity. In my last two points, I was speaking specifically of progressives who don’t identify as Christians. There are, however, many who hold to the same social justice ideology and do identify as Christians. They are typically focused on a human Jesus who merely cares about a social gospel, and they reject the authority of the Bible. These Christians would heartily affirm everything on the He Gets Us site. Given that the site portrays a fully human Jesus and at the same time claims to be presented by “Christians,” there’s no reason to think someone wouldn’t come away thinking they can be a Christian and not believe all the “baggage” about things like the Bible being God’s Word.
It’s worth noting this statement on the site: “He Gets Us is a diverse group of Jesus followers with a wide variety of faith journeys and lived experiences. Our work represents the input from Christians who believe that Jesus is the son of God.” All of this looks good so far. But they continue saying, “as well as many others who, though not Christians, share a deep admiration for the man that Jesus was, and we are deeply inspired and curious to explore his story.” It’s pretty clear theologically progressive Christians, who deny the deity of Christ, have been part of the team.
So, my answer to the question, “Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right Jesus?” is a resounding no. It’s not just an incomplete picture of Jesus. It’s an inaccurate one. And because it will just confirm what the target audience already thinks, many if not most will jump out of the marketing funnel before they get to the desire to learn more. If you don’t challenge people’s thinking, what would they need to learn more about?
3. Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?
While I clearly have significant concerns about the people who imbibe ideas about Jesus and Christians from the He Gets Us web and TV content alone—never getting to the Bible or a church from this campaign—what about those who do actually get to the Bible reading plans? Are they designed well to take people to the next level of understanding—to an accurate one?
There are 7 plans on YouVersion, ranging from 4 to 9 days of content. I read all 43 days of the plans. If you’re interested in the details, I’ve documented below. If not, you can jump to the bottom line after I list the plans.
Plan 1: “He Gets Us” (7 days)
This plan continues the model of using progressive language and framing. The devotionals make comments like these:
- “[Jesus’s enemies] feared him because he challenged the norm.” In progressive contexts, norms are typically seen as bad and need to be overturned.
- “The way Jesus called out the toxic religious and political systems turned history upside down.” In progressive contexts, religion—especially Christianity—is toxic, as are political systems, so this makes Jesus appear to favor that view.
- “[Jesus] made friends with people just as they are and let himself be known just as he was, too. Authentic. Trust-worthy. The kind of friend we all long for.” It’s true that Jesus made friends with people as they are, but most progressives are likely to read this as, “Jesus accepts you for whoever you want to be, so be your authentic self.” That’s not what it says, but if you have cultural awareness of the claims and debates today, it’s fairly obvious that’s something progressives would take from it without realizing the distinction between being friends with someone and approving of their identity/behavior.
- “The Samaritan stopped and cared for the Jew, at his own expense just like he would a neighbor—unlike the racist, religious men who stepped over the beat-up guy on their way to worship, of all things.” Again, this plays into the progressive hatred for the “religious”; yes, the men were religious, but that wasn’t the problem. Jesus never scolded people for being too religious; He scolded them for being self-righteous and hypocritical.
- “Yes, it’s true. The one who stood bravely against the strongest, most corrupt system of the day, was on his face in fear.” And yet again, this plays into the progressive view of systems being inherently corrupt.
In short, plan 1 is more of the same from the ad/web campaign and, far from redeeming the nature of that content, simply doubles down on the equivocation and misunderstandings.
Plan 2: “Diving Deeper” (7 days)
I thought that, given the title, this is where we would get deeper into a theologically accurate portrayal and reading of Jesus, but that’s not what I found. This one had fewer problematic statements than plan 1, but the content overall gets no closer to teaching people about the true Jesus (while continuing with occasional progressive framing along the way, such as casting Jesus’s infant trip to Egypt as a “refugee” situation).
On day 1, it says, “The best way to discover his actual purpose, regardless of the centuries between us, is to look at his life. Sure, plenty of books have been written about what he taught, but let’s look at his private side, the side you see when you walk with someone side by side down a new road.” The subsequent days go on to have subjects like “He grieves with us,” “He understands us,” “He’s vulnerable like us,” “He loves us,” “He faced hardship like us,” and “He is for us.” Do the actions leading to these statements really reveal Jesus’s “actual purpose” as indicated on day 1? Jesus’s purpose was to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). But to understand that would require an understanding of the nature of God, the nature of man, the divine nature of Jesus, and the problem of sin—none of which He Gets Us had addressed by this point. Instead, they offer people yet again more confirmation that Jesus simply gets us.
Plan 3: “Questions Jesus Asked” (7 days)
This plan seems disconnected from the other plans, rather than being on some kind of trajectory like “digging even deeper.” It features a set of questions Jesus asked people, with answers showing His character (no, still not his divine nature). There’s again a dig at “religious leaders” saying, “The cancel campaign began in Jerusalem where the jealous, paranoid religious leaders set a plot in motion to kill Jesus and they wouldn’t quit until he hung dead on a cross.”
Notably, this is the first plan where the verses themselves start referring to Jesus as something more than a human (John 6:66-69). It’s also the first time the devotional content casually references Jesus doing something supernatural (day 5 talks about Him walking on water). There is, however, zero explanatory transition from human Jesus to Jesus as God here. Someone who didn’t know that the Bible teaches Jesus is God could be forgiven for scratching their heads at how this human was now walking on water!
Despite this strange jump, I thought they were going to bring home the good news when they said, “But Jesus offers love, not because we measure up, but because of who he is. On that day, She chose to believe Jesus was who he said he was.” And, somewhat inexplicably, they don’t go on to say who Jesus said He was. Not only that, but they don’t get to it until the plan after the next one.
Plan 4: “Who Did Jesus Love?” (9 days)
Plans 4 and 5 are so different from everything else in the He Gets Us campaign that it seems like they hired a committed Christian to insert this content to make the well-meaning funders (who want people to know about the true Jesus) happy. I realize that sounds cynical, but it’s a jarring difference.
In plan 4, we read verses where Jesus is proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease—a clearly supernatural Jesus. Day 2 says, “The person we despise, he loved. And not for anything they did to deserve it but because of who he was,” and that comes with verses about salvation and how the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost. We read that Mary knew Jesus’s birth was far from “natural.” We see a doubting Thomas who wanted to personally experience the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. And we read the gospel in John 3:16.
So, if people see an ad, go to the site, sign up for a Bible reading plan and make it to plan 4, they will find a supernatural Savior. (Granted, you could theoretically start with plan 4, but I’m guessing most people start with plan 1.)
Plan 5: “Who Did Jesus Say He Was?” (9 days)
This is the plan that really brings home what they should have been bringing home all along. Day 1 says, “Not only does he get us. He wants us to get him.” Yes! At long last, they make this connection. They go on to teach the full Jesus in this plan. Again, it’s so different in nature and even in language, that it really feels like they brought in someone to insert the “theological” content after the progressive Christians on staff developed everything else. Day 7 in particular brings the whole message home, laying out the Gospel and exclusivity of Jesus, and encourages people to pray.
Plan 6: “Jesus & Joy” (4 days)
This is a short plan focused on the subject of joy. There’s little here of interest other than another passing criticism of religious leaders (“Religious guys seemed to love following Jesus around town. Could you imagine being the popular guy in a town that stirred up the kind of noise that very religious people hated? That was Jesus”).
Plan 7: “What Jesus Gave Up” (6 days)
This one focuses on how Jesus was “after a different way of living.” Unfortunately, the plan reverts to a primarily human Jesus. For example, it lists four ways Jesus spent His life on earth and changed history: Jesus taught another way, He served, He forgave (the description of this only includes his human forgiveness of others, not His divine forgiveness), and He loved. It leaves out the most important reason why He changed history—He was God incarnate. On the final day, titled, “He Gave Up Vengeance,” it says, “The reality of what was happening was not lost on him. And nothing about it surprised him. Jesus was determined to accomplish what he came to do. And he did.” That’s the end, with no explanation about what He accomplished. (To be clear, they explained that in plan 5, but the plans seem to be written independently of one another, so a reader wouldn’t necessarily have been through plan 5 to know what they’re talking about.)
So, the bottom line is that the plans range from problematic (more social justice framing) to some basic Bible content (e.g., on joy) to some actual theological meat on what was left out of everything else on who Jesus is (plans 4 and 5). If someone actually makes it to plans 4 and 5, they’ll hear the gospel.
4. Does the He Gets Us campaign direct people to theologically solid churches for continuing their search for truth?
When people become interested in learning more about Jesus, they’re directed to a “Connect” page. One of my most significant concerns with the campaign last year was that there was no clear theological vetting of churches to which people were being sent. I do not see any updates or information on the current site as to the criteria they’re using to select church prospects.
[Editor’s Note] On the “Connect Locally” page, people are invited to join a local Alpha Course Small Group where they can discuss their questions in a church-based small-group setting.
As I explain in Faithfully Different, 65% of Americans identify as Christian while only about 6% have a worldview consistent with what the Bible teaches, and a dismal percent of pastors have a biblical worldview. If you have no theological criteria for where you’re sending people, you’re actually more likely than not—based on statistics—to be sending them to a church whose teachings don’t line up with those of the Bible. In other words, you’re sending unsuspecting truth seekers to places where they won’t hear truth.
Perhaps they have tightened up their criteria but aren’t explicitly saying that on the site. I’ll be happy to update my comments here if someone from the campaign wants to reach out and contact me.
Closing Thoughts
In conclusion, I want to say I’m sure there is good that will come from the campaign. I hope there is much good that comes from it. And I know God can make good come from anything He chooses. But those aren’t reasons to not critique something and offer discernment. I find it highly discouraging that when there is so much money being poured into a campaign, it’s being used to further the perception that Jesus is the same Jesus people already believe in rather than the one they need to believe in. Promoting a social justice Jesus can actually make talking about the real Jesus more difficult, because He Gets Us has placed one more data point in people’s minds that it’s His followers who talk about all that “unpopular stuff” who don’t get it. They’ll come away knowing Jesus gets them, but they won’t get Him.
Let’s hope a lot of people get to Bible reading plans 4 and 5.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://natashacrain.com/here-comes-the-he-gets-us-campaign-again-why-its-portrayal-of-jesus-is-still-a-problem/
Why Would a GOOD God Create People He Knew Would Go to Hell? Plus More Q&A
PodcastIf God knew that millions or billions of people would not only sin, but in the end reject Him and therefore spend eternity in Hell, why would He create mankind in the first place? In other words, why would God create people He knew would go to Hell? Wouldn’t a “good” God create a universe where EVERYONE believes?
This week, Frank responds to these and other listener questions surrounding various topics like conversational prayer, the fear of sharing your faith, and how to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with our free will. He’ll also address the assertion from some atheists and skeptics that theists must provide “extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims”, even though they don’t hold themselves to the same (totally illogical) standards! You’ll also learn:
Later in the podcast, Frank shares some practical advice on how to combat wokism in the workplace. He’ll also briefly unpack a shocking event that transpired when a concerned mom encountered a man identifying as transgender in the women’s locker room at her local Planet Fitness. If you’ve ever been challenged in any of the areas highlighted in this week’s midweek podcast, Frank will offer a helpful list of additional resources that are relevant to each of the topics discussed, so be sure to check our list of helpful links below!
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
BOOK: Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler
BOOK: Coming to Faith Through Dawkins by Denis Alexander and Alister McGrath
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper? – Part 1 by Greg Koukl
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper – Part 2 by Greg Koukl
BOOK: Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Frieson and J. Robin Maxson
ARTICLE: Sex at Work – by Frank Turek
BOOK: Correct, Not Politically Correct – by Frank Turek
Here Comes the He Gets Us Campaign Again: Why Its Portrayal of Jesus is Still a Problem
Culture and Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsLast year, I wrote an article called “7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign,” in which I critically responded to the $100 million advertising campaign featuring a website, billboards in major cities, a book, and ads that have been viewed more than 300 million times. Perhaps most visibly, the campaign’s ads were featured in last year’s Super Bowl. When thousands of people went searching for more information on it, my article came up, and it went viral—actually pulling down my site at one point! Clearly, a lot of people are interested in knowing more about the nature of these ads.
Fast forward to 2024. Super Bowl Sunday was on February 11. And He Gets Us once again ran ads generating widespread curiosity. Given the reach of the campaign and high interest level, I wanted to do an updated evaluation of what He Gets Us is doing today. To that end, I’m going to answer four questions:
There are three things that will inform my answers. First is my professional background in marketing (I have an MBA in marketing and am a former adjunct marketing professor). Since this is a campaign aimed at “marketing” Jesus, that background is particularly relevant. Second is my evaluation of the publicly available He Gets Us content (the website and YouVersion reading plans). I have not read the He Gets Us book, so that isn’t part of what I’m responding to. Third is a recent interview campaign consultant Ed Stetzer did with Biola professors Scott Rae and Sean McDowell on Biola’s “Think Biblically” podcast (Stetzer is the Dean of Biola’s Talbot School of Theology). While Stetzer says he is not a spokesman for the campaign, he has been closely involved, so his comments are helpful for an insider view of the goals and strategies.
1. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?
Stetzer says that the people who eventually started the campaign had become concerned “that the perception of Christianity had suffered and people weren’t necessarily considering who Jesus was. And they would like for people to consider who he was, who he is.” They then brought in market researchers who found that skeptics were open to considering who Jesus was (I’d love to know more about that, but no further information was noted). Stetzer emphasized repeatedly in the interview that the very narrow goal of the campaign is to reach those skeptics. Ultimately, He Gets Us wants to build a bridge from people seeing the ads to learning more by going to the website and ultimately signing up for a Bible reading plan and/or asking to be connected to a church.
So, in short, the goal is very specifically to get skeptics interested in Jesus. That’s a very worthy goal, especially if you have millions of dollars to do it with. My first question is, does the campaign successfully meet that objective?
While I don’t know the statistics on how many people have visited the He Gets Us website as a result of the ads, Stetzer says over 600,000 people have signed up for the reading plans and “hundreds of thousands” have been referred to churches. So, as a surface-level answer to the question, it certainly seems reasonable to say that yes, the campaign has generated interest. If the goal was to get people to one of those two action points—signing up for the Bible reading plan and/or asking for a church referral—then marketers have achieved at least some success. (Whether the numbers justify the money spent is a different question that I’m not evaluating here.)
2. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right Jesus?
From a marketing perspective, there is a predictable funnel that people go through before taking action (e.g., making a purchase). It starts with becoming awareof something, which then sometimes converts to interest, which then sometimes converts to desire for action, which then sometimes converts to action. Marketers know that if you want people to take action—to get to the bottom of the funnel—you have to first take them through those stages, and those stages have to be tailored toward the action you want.
In this case, if you are marketing in order to generate interest in Jesus, you want to be sure you’re generating interest in the right Jesus (a correct portrayal) if you want that to lead to the action you desire. This is where I believe the campaign fails in a serious way.
As I said in last year’s article, the Jesus of this campaign is nothing more than an inspiring human who relates to our problems and cares a whole lot about a culturally palatable version of social justice (the exception to this is in parts of the reading plan, which I’ll address in the next point). This has not changed since I last wrote. My points then remain true now: The fact that Jesus “gets us,” stripped from the context of His identity, is meaningless; Jesus is presented as an example, not a Savior; The campaign reinforces the problematic idea that Jesus’s followers have Jesus all wrong; And the campaign reinforces what culture wants to believe about Jesus while leaving out what culture doesn’t want to believe. I won’t expand on these points here since you can read my prior article for that analysis.
But I do want to say more this time about who the campaign is clearly targeting. Stetzer mentioned that it’s “skeptics,” but a close evaluation (or even not so close evaluation) of the campaign makes it clear it’s not all skeptics they have in mind. This is crucial to understand. It’s a very specific segment of skeptics—it’s progressives who primarily view the world through a lens of social justice (and specifically the critical theory model of social justice, which places everyone in oppressor/oppressed buckets).
5 Signs Your Church Might Be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity
If you’ve never immersed yourself in the world of this viewpoint, you might not recognize how laden the content is with language and framing designed to appeal very specifically to this group. If they were targeting just any skeptic, you wouldn’t see such a specific framing of Jesus in progressive terminology; there are plenty of skeptics who aren’t beholden to progressive social justice thinking.
For example, they use hashtags with words that have a specific connotation to a progressive audience, even if the campaign isn’t necessarily using them in the same way (on the home page, you see #inclusive #activist #struggle #refugee #justice #outrage #bias #judgment). They also frame their content in terms that are commonly used in progressive social critiques. For example, the words “religious leaders” or “religious people” are often used with a negative connotation, which serves to reinforce the notion that it’s bad to be “religious.” That was never Jesus’s claim (see my podcast with Alisa Childers). There are recurring references to concepts like lived experience, power dynamics, oppression, racial conflict, toxic systems, corruption, and political conflict—all progressive focal points. That’s not to say that none of these things are actually problems, but rather that it’s clear they’re focusing on progressives given their obvious focus on progressive concerns.
So why is this a concern? I have no concern at all with choosing progressives as your target audience. But I have a lot of concern with the nature of the campaign given this target and what they are likely to take from it. Here are three key reasons why.
First, the campaign will likely lead many progressives to conclude that they (still) like Jesus and (still) hate Christians. To be honest, I’m not very convinced that we even have a problem with Jesus’s reputation in culture. People tend to like Jesus because they don’t understand all that He taught. As far as the average person is concerned, Jesus was a loving guy who hated “the system” and can serve as a good moral example—and that’s exactly how the He Gets Us website portrays Him. People, however, tend to have disdain for Christians when we present the fullness of what the Bible teaches, particularly on moral subjects. So, if a progressive sees this content and never gets to a Bible reading plan or church connection, they’ve taken away that Jesus was the great guy they thought He was and that all those Christians today who talk about things they don’t like are still the problem.
Second, the campaign will solidify the idea in progressives’s minds that their social justice lens of the world is the lens through which Jesus sees it, too. It would be one thing if marketers used progressive language to present a full picture of Jesus. But when you just use progressive language without presenting the full picture, it leaves the impression that their language—representing a whole underlying worldview structure built on critical theory—is correct. Those who don’t get to the desired Bible or church action points will simply come away thinking that Jesus was a social justice warrior just like they are (with all that implies to them).
Is that really a big problem? Yes, yes it is. It is this model of oppressed/oppressor thinking that leads progressives to claim the gender binary is oppressive, that white people are inherently racist, that abortion is a form of justice for women, that heterosexuality is an oppressive norm, and that we need to abolish the nuclear family. If this campaign even inadvertently suggests through a social justice veneer that this is the lens through which Jesus would have seen the world, that is a disastrous consequence.
Third, the campaign can easily be construed to affirm theologically progressive Christianity. In my last two points, I was speaking specifically of progressives who don’t identify as Christians. There are, however, many who hold to the same social justice ideology and do identify as Christians. They are typically focused on a human Jesus who merely cares about a social gospel, and they reject the authority of the Bible. These Christians would heartily affirm everything on the He Gets Us site. Given that the site portrays a fully human Jesus and at the same time claims to be presented by “Christians,” there’s no reason to think someone wouldn’t come away thinking they can be a Christian and not believe all the “baggage” about things like the Bible being God’s Word.
It’s worth noting this statement on the site: “He Gets Us is a diverse group of Jesus followers with a wide variety of faith journeys and lived experiences. Our work represents the input from Christians who believe that Jesus is the son of God.” All of this looks good so far. But they continue saying, “as well as many others who, though not Christians, share a deep admiration for the man that Jesus was, and we are deeply inspired and curious to explore his story.” It’s pretty clear theologically progressive Christians, who deny the deity of Christ, have been part of the team.
So, my answer to the question, “Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right Jesus?” is a resounding no. It’s not just an incomplete picture of Jesus. It’s an inaccurate one. And because it will just confirm what the target audience already thinks, many if not most will jump out of the marketing funnel before they get to the desire to learn more. If you don’t challenge people’s thinking, what would they need to learn more about?
3. Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?
While I clearly have significant concerns about the people who imbibe ideas about Jesus and Christians from the He Gets Us web and TV content alone—never getting to the Bible or a church from this campaign—what about those who do actually get to the Bible reading plans? Are they designed well to take people to the next level of understanding—to an accurate one?
There are 7 plans on YouVersion, ranging from 4 to 9 days of content. I read all 43 days of the plans. If you’re interested in the details, I’ve documented below. If not, you can jump to the bottom line after I list the plans.
Plan 1: “He Gets Us” (7 days)
This plan continues the model of using progressive language and framing. The devotionals make comments like these:
In short, plan 1 is more of the same from the ad/web campaign and, far from redeeming the nature of that content, simply doubles down on the equivocation and misunderstandings.
Plan 2: “Diving Deeper” (7 days)
I thought that, given the title, this is where we would get deeper into a theologically accurate portrayal and reading of Jesus, but that’s not what I found. This one had fewer problematic statements than plan 1, but the content overall gets no closer to teaching people about the true Jesus (while continuing with occasional progressive framing along the way, such as casting Jesus’s infant trip to Egypt as a “refugee” situation).
On day 1, it says, “The best way to discover his actual purpose, regardless of the centuries between us, is to look at his life. Sure, plenty of books have been written about what he taught, but let’s look at his private side, the side you see when you walk with someone side by side down a new road.” The subsequent days go on to have subjects like “He grieves with us,” “He understands us,” “He’s vulnerable like us,” “He loves us,” “He faced hardship like us,” and “He is for us.” Do the actions leading to these statements really reveal Jesus’s “actual purpose” as indicated on day 1? Jesus’s purpose was to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). But to understand that would require an understanding of the nature of God, the nature of man, the divine nature of Jesus, and the problem of sin—none of which He Gets Us had addressed by this point. Instead, they offer people yet again more confirmation that Jesus simply gets us.
Plan 3: “Questions Jesus Asked” (7 days)
This plan seems disconnected from the other plans, rather than being on some kind of trajectory like “digging even deeper.” It features a set of questions Jesus asked people, with answers showing His character (no, still not his divine nature). There’s again a dig at “religious leaders” saying, “The cancel campaign began in Jerusalem where the jealous, paranoid religious leaders set a plot in motion to kill Jesus and they wouldn’t quit until he hung dead on a cross.”
Notably, this is the first plan where the verses themselves start referring to Jesus as something more than a human (John 6:66-69). It’s also the first time the devotional content casually references Jesus doing something supernatural (day 5 talks about Him walking on water). There is, however, zero explanatory transition from human Jesus to Jesus as God here. Someone who didn’t know that the Bible teaches Jesus is God could be forgiven for scratching their heads at how this human was now walking on water!
Despite this strange jump, I thought they were going to bring home the good news when they said, “But Jesus offers love, not because we measure up, but because of who he is. On that day, She chose to believe Jesus was who he said he was.” And, somewhat inexplicably, they don’t go on to say who Jesus said He was. Not only that, but they don’t get to it until the plan after the next one.
Plan 4: “Who Did Jesus Love?” (9 days)
Plans 4 and 5 are so different from everything else in the He Gets Us campaign that it seems like they hired a committed Christian to insert this content to make the well-meaning funders (who want people to know about the true Jesus) happy. I realize that sounds cynical, but it’s a jarring difference.
In plan 4, we read verses where Jesus is proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease—a clearly supernatural Jesus. Day 2 says, “The person we despise, he loved. And not for anything they did to deserve it but because of who he was,” and that comes with verses about salvation and how the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost. We read that Mary knew Jesus’s birth was far from “natural.” We see a doubting Thomas who wanted to personally experience the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. And we read the gospel in John 3:16.
So, if people see an ad, go to the site, sign up for a Bible reading plan and make it to plan 4, they will find a supernatural Savior. (Granted, you could theoretically start with plan 4, but I’m guessing most people start with plan 1.)
Plan 5: “Who Did Jesus Say He Was?” (9 days)
This is the plan that really brings home what they should have been bringing home all along. Day 1 says, “Not only does he get us. He wants us to get him.” Yes! At long last, they make this connection. They go on to teach the full Jesus in this plan. Again, it’s so different in nature and even in language, that it really feels like they brought in someone to insert the “theological” content after the progressive Christians on staff developed everything else. Day 7 in particular brings the whole message home, laying out the Gospel and exclusivity of Jesus, and encourages people to pray.
Plan 6: “Jesus & Joy” (4 days)
This is a short plan focused on the subject of joy. There’s little here of interest other than another passing criticism of religious leaders (“Religious guys seemed to love following Jesus around town. Could you imagine being the popular guy in a town that stirred up the kind of noise that very religious people hated? That was Jesus”).
Plan 7: “What Jesus Gave Up” (6 days)
This one focuses on how Jesus was “after a different way of living.” Unfortunately, the plan reverts to a primarily human Jesus. For example, it lists four ways Jesus spent His life on earth and changed history: Jesus taught another way, He served, He forgave (the description of this only includes his human forgiveness of others, not His divine forgiveness), and He loved. It leaves out the most important reason why He changed history—He was God incarnate. On the final day, titled, “He Gave Up Vengeance,” it says, “The reality of what was happening was not lost on him. And nothing about it surprised him. Jesus was determined to accomplish what he came to do. And he did.” That’s the end, with no explanation about what He accomplished. (To be clear, they explained that in plan 5, but the plans seem to be written independently of one another, so a reader wouldn’t necessarily have been through plan 5 to know what they’re talking about.)
So, the bottom line is that the plans range from problematic (more social justice framing) to some basic Bible content (e.g., on joy) to some actual theological meat on what was left out of everything else on who Jesus is (plans 4 and 5). If someone actually makes it to plans 4 and 5, they’ll hear the gospel.
4. Does the He Gets Us campaign direct people to theologically solid churches for continuing their search for truth?
When people become interested in learning more about Jesus, they’re directed to a “Connect” page. One of my most significant concerns with the campaign last year was that there was no clear theological vetting of churches to which people were being sent. I do not see any updates or information on the current site as to the criteria they’re using to select church prospects.
[Editor’s Note] On the “Connect Locally” page, people are invited to join a local Alpha Course Small Group where they can discuss their questions in a church-based small-group setting.
As I explain in Faithfully Different, 65% of Americans identify as Christian while only about 6% have a worldview consistent with what the Bible teaches, and a dismal percent of pastors have a biblical worldview. If you have no theological criteria for where you’re sending people, you’re actually more likely than not—based on statistics—to be sending them to a church whose teachings don’t line up with those of the Bible. In other words, you’re sending unsuspecting truth seekers to places where they won’t hear truth.
Perhaps they have tightened up their criteria but aren’t explicitly saying that on the site. I’ll be happy to update my comments here if someone from the campaign wants to reach out and contact me.
Closing Thoughts
In conclusion, I want to say I’m sure there is good that will come from the campaign. I hope there is much good that comes from it. And I know God can make good come from anything He chooses. But those aren’t reasons to not critique something and offer discernment. I find it highly discouraging that when there is so much money being poured into a campaign, it’s being used to further the perception that Jesus is the same Jesus people already believe in rather than the one they need to believe in. Promoting a social justice Jesus can actually make talking about the real Jesus more difficult, because He Gets Us has placed one more data point in people’s minds that it’s His followers who talk about all that “unpopular stuff” who don’t get it. They’ll come away knowing Jesus gets them, but they won’t get Him.
Let’s hope a lot of people get to Bible reading plans 4 and 5.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://natashacrain.com/here-comes-the-he-gets-us-campaign-again-why-its-portrayal-of-jesus-is-still-a-problem/
Is America Becoming a Police State? with Dinesh D’Souza
PodcastIs the U.S. government deliberately targeting patriotic Americans with conservative values? In a post 9/11 America, the necessary push to prevent Islamic terrorism opened the door for justice agencies to shift their focus to what they now call “domestic terrorists”. But what if your conservative, Christian beliefs have the potential to put you on the government’s radar as a domestic threat?
This week, author, apologist, speaker, and political commentator, Dinesh D’Souza, joins Frank to discuss his new documentary film ‘Police State‘, which is sounding the alarm on the Deep State’s witch hunt of ordinary, law-abiding citizens who happen to be conservatives and/or Christians. D’Souza will share his own frightening run-in with the feds following the release of his film ‘Obama’s America‘, and expose how he was able to survive the shakedown and the attempted sabotage of his career. During their conversation, Frank and Dinesh will answer questions like:
In D’Souza’s live action dramatization (based on actual footage recorded at the scene), he’ll give you a glimpse of the horrific real-life events that devastated the lives of innocent people like Catholic pro-lifer, Mark Houck, a loving husband and father of seven. Could identifying as a pro-lifer, supporting natural marriage, or even opposing transgender ideology in your kid’s school be enough for you to be categorized as a “domestic terrorist”? Be sure to check out the crowdfunded film ‘Police State‘, and learn more about America’s move towards government domination and what you can do about it!
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Police State (Documentary Film)
What’s So Great About Christianity? (Book)
Red Referral Network
Other Books & Films by Dinesh D’Souza
The Need for Cognitive Closure in Dealing with Doubts
Theology and Christian ApologeticsOver the years in my work as a public apologist, I have spoken with many dozens of ex-Christians who have renounced their faith and become atheists, as well as numerous individuals who still consider themselves believers but nonetheless are struggling seriously with intellectual doubts concerning the veracity of the Christian faith. In addition, I have watched literally hundreds of YouTube videos wherein a testimony is given of one’s journey out of the Christian faith towards atheism. Through listening to countless people in this situation, I have come to realize how difficult it is for believers to express to members of their church or Christian community that they are struggling with doubts (presumably because to express that one struggles with doubt carries a negative stigma in many churches today).
Struggling with Doubt?
God has therefore placed a burden on my heart for Christians who wrestle with doubts, and I have for several years offered a free service for Christians who wrestle with intellectual doubts. There is a form on my website people can fill out and I endeavor to set up a meeting (normally online) with them to discuss their doubts in confidence.
One of the things I try to do when counseling someone who is walking through doubt is to help them to develop a protocol for managing doubt in an intellectually responsible way and to make them aware of intellectual pitfalls that can ensnare the unwary. In this and future articles, I want to unpack some of those common pitfalls.
Needing Closure?
There is a phenomenon in psychology, which can be an impediment to sound critical thinking. That is, the need for cognitive closure. Wikipedia defines it this way:
Different people have varying levels of tolerance for mystery and ambiguity. Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure are more prone to walk away from the Christian faith than individuals with a lower need. For some people, in order to be content within one’s worldview, satisfactory answers must exist to all possible questions and objections that might be raised against it.
It is important, however, that we do not become too fixated on the objections to Christianity that we miss the forest for the trees, losing sight of the avalanche of positive confirmatory evidence that cumulatively demonstrates that Christianity is true. Because we have such robust reasons to think Christianity is true, we can justifiably say,
Does the problem of evil, by itself, discredit Christianity?
Indeed, the argument from evil, especially natural evil, has been wielded as a cumulative counter-case that competes with the case offered in confirmation of Christianity. An important point to bear in mind when dealing with this subject, however, is that successive pieces of evidence are dependent rather than independent. To see this, suppose that we were to make a long list of specific cases of human and animal suffering for which we do not see any obvious purpose. Let us call them E1, E2, …, En. If we were to take one of them (say, E1) and ask how it affects the probabilities of theism (T) and atheism (~T), then we might say P(E1|~T)/P(E1|T) = k, where k >>1. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that k = 100. That is to say, the probability of E1 is 100 times greater given the falsehood of theism than given its being true. In order to make the cumulative case, we need to bring in additional pieces of evidence. But do they have the same epistemic force as the first one did? This is not at all clear. After all, if God were to have, however unexpectedly, some morally sufficient reason for permitting E1, then it is quite reasonable to expect that God might well have a similar reason for permitting E2, and so forth. The pieces of evidence are all fundamentally similar, all being instances of the suffering of conscious beings. But if God has a morally sufficient reason for one, that same justification may well also explain a host of other similar cases. Now contrast this to the cumulative case for the truth of theism and indeed Christianity. Not only is it extensive, but it is also varied in kind. It is therefore much more difficult to conceive of there being a single alternative explanation for a widely varied evidence that would all be expected if the hypothesis in question were true. It is for this reason that I submit that counter-evidence such as the problem of evil be considered not in isolation but within the broader context of the overall evidence taken as a whole.
What about Evidence Doesn’t Seem to Fit?
Scientific theories often have evidence both supporting and conflicting with it. But anomalous data should not automatically overhaul a well-supported theory, even if a satisfactory explanation of the anomalous data has not yet been proposed. Likewise, I would argue, the strength and varied nature of the positive evidence for Christianity should cause us to expect that explanations of the anomalous data, for which we do not yet have a satisfactory account within the framework of the Christian worldview, in fact exists — even though we do not yet know what that explanation is.
The English rhetorician, logician, economist, academic, and theologian Richard Whately (1787-1863) put it this way:
Indeed, there is no shame for a Christian in having unanswered questions. The question is not “are there questions about Christianity for which there are no satisfactory answers?” Rather, the question is, “are there more numerous and more substantive objections to believing the gospel or to disbelieving the gospel?” Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions. Rejecting Christianity because there are unanswered questions in favor of an alternative worldview that raises even more numerous and more substantive unanswered questions does not resolve the problem.
That’s a Good Question!
I recently received an email from someone who was struggling with doubt over the question of why God creates people whom He knows for sure will choose to reject Him and will therefore end up estranged from God’s favorable presence in the hereafter. This is a very good question, and I do not believe anyone really knows the answer since we lack complete information about the relationship between divine sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, and human free will, etc. If Christianity is true, however, we would not be expected to have answers to most questions like this. So, the fact that we do not, in fact, have answers to such questions does not, I would argue, really count as a serious blow against Christianity.
Note that saying we wouldn’t be expected to have answers is quite different from saying that the questions are unanswerable. That is why many Christians get drawn into a speculative response (i.e. “perhaps it is because…”). There is nothing wrong with such responses per se. But precisely because we do not know, we should not get too invested in such speculations. Nor should we treat their failure as signifying something grave.
“Help My Kid is Deconstructing!” [CE Podcast]
Difficult questions about God’s sovereignty and salvation program must always be accompanied by a consideration of the plausibility that there is some answer to those questions that has not been disclosed to us, is beyond our finite ability to comprehend, or simply has not occurred to us. In other words, is it a problem that overhauls the vast confirmatory evidence for Christianity and thereby warrants rejection of the Christian faith, or is it a question with which we can live contentedly in the absence of an answer? An unanswered question is not the same thing as an epistemic warrant for rejection of Christianity.
The atheist so frequently assumes the high ground when it comes to epistemic humility. When pressed on where the Universe or life came from the atheist typically responds “I don’t know.” They are content with not knowing. Why, then, should the same luxury not be extended to the Christian when it comes to why God has done things this or that way? We need to be willing to accept an element of mystery when it comes to divine action. Unlike God, we do not have the box top, as it were, of the jig saw, which reveals how all of the pieces are meant to fit together.
Therefore, we just ought to trust God that he knows what He is doing. As the Proverb states, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6).
Footnotes:
[i] Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Why Is God Ignoring Me? (DVD), and (mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? The Hiddenness of God: Why Isn’t God More Obvious? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3, and Mp4 Download
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally published at: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-need-for-cognitive-closure-in-dealing-with-doubts/
Can We Really Believe the Bible is Inerrant? Plus More Q&A
PodcastDo you have to believe that the Bible is completely without error to be a true Christian? If you don’t agree with the Bible, you ultimately find yourself at odds with the teachings of Jesus and that’s never a good idea. But if both the Old and New Testaments have discrepancies, why should we consider our Bible to be inspired?
This week, Frank dives into the issue of the inspiration of Scripture and tackles several questions from the audience, briefly discussing topics like abortion, free will, and God’s sovereignty. He’ll also examine some of the apparent contradictions in the Bible and offer insights from scholars and theologians regarding the variations between the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the New Testament. During the episode, Frank will answer questions like:
Additionally, Frank will take us into the cosmic realm and explore the implications of the Big Bang on the creation story in Genesis. For those wanting to go deeper into these questions, Frank shares his recommended reads to expand their understanding. If grappling with challenging passages in the Bible has been a hurdle for you, this episode is a must-listen! By the conclusion of this podcast, you’ll gain a deeper understanding of how to interpret the Bible within its literary and historical framework, empowering you to steer clear of common misinterpretations of Scripture.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned in the episode:
Book: The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe
Book: Seven Days That Divide the World by John Lennox
Book: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Why We Are Not Best Judges of What Is Good
Theology and Christian Apologetics“Avast yer jabberin, ya bunch a bilge rats!” The voice sounded strange as it reached into the hallway. The speaker was apparently trying to make a point. “Yer division a booty must be… “ he paused to consider his words, “more equitable if ye be wanting to sail with me.”
He had my attention. I was at a work conference in a hotel, wandering the halls during a break, when I happened across this conference room. I peeked inside. It could have been a scene from the latest Pirates movie. Men of various ages with lots of facial hair, many dressed in striped pants, with the occasional peg leg and hook hand. Yes, I had stumbled across a pirates’ convention, the 350th annual, it seemed, from the schedule which I found posted outside.
Pirate Ethics
The speaker’s topic was ethics. He went on to explain what an equitable share of booty amounted to, in his view, using a very modern looking PowerPoint presentation to punctuate his points.
I caught up with him at the break and asked if he had time for a few questions. He seemed a bit suspicious, what with my business casual attire, but nonetheless willing.
“Seriously,” I began. “Ethics for pirates? I mean, for centuries you guys have been boarding and capturing and enslaving people without much regard for ethics. You’ve been known to rape, pillage and plunder, and your personal hygiene is … not the best.” I quickly ended, seeing that I was crossing a line.
A hurt look crossed his face. “Yer words be stingin,” he began, but my words were nothing compared to his breath. I took a step back and tried not to stare at the parrot on his shoulder. “I don’t suppose ye know bout all the good that we do. Why ar ann’l ball raises thousands for the widows n’orphns fund, and we do lots of behind the scenes work ye never be aware of. Last year alone, we returned almost 30 percent of our captured booty to charitable organizations.”
“Is that a fact?” I asked. “I had no idea. But,” I persisted, “this is stuff that you’re stealing.”
Who’re the REAL Thieves?
“We make no excuses for that, m’lad. But we’ve been pretty transparent about that from the beginning, ain’t we? After all, ye had no trouble spotting us for who we are. If ye want the real thievin’ ones, it’s the bankers and lawyers ye want to be houndin…” He pointed down the hall to the lawyers’ convention I had been attending.
Yes, of course I’m making this up. But I think there is a valid point here to be made. Human beings have an amazing capacity to judge themselves on a curve. Pirates no doubt convince themselves that they are somehow justified in doing what they do. They may think of harm they suffered when younger, or may feel that life dealt them the hand that they play. And they no doubt have a set of ethics that they follow, however uncivilized it may seem to us. And many, if pressed, would seek to justify their behavior by reference to all the things they don’t do. “Sure, we kill on occasion. But only those who don’t surrender, or those who for whatever reason need killing.” This is the human condition, whether in a high school, at the office, on a pirate ship, or in a prison. We don’t seem to have the capacity to see ourselves for what we truly are.
I’m Good Enough to Go to Heaven, right?
What does any of this have to do with Christian apologetics? Just this: the number one response of nonbelievers as to why they don’t worry about the afterlife goes something like this. “I don’t know if there is a God, but if there is, he will see all the good that I do and accept me. So, I’m not worried. A good God will see that I am living a good life.”
But holding this view is not that different than the pirates in the analogy above. Compared to others of that ilk, an individual pirate might seem like a good guy. But that hardly would qualify him for life in a peaceful and civilized society. His problem isn’t how he compares to his fellows, but how he measures up to the place he’s trying to get to. He may think himself “good” when in an objective sense he is anything but. Similarly, many people today believe they have a proper sense of what “good” human behavior is, but how can they know for sure when they are mired in the corruption of their nature? And more importantly, have they given any thought to what “perfect” behavior requires? What a perfect being might use to measure admission to His realm?
We’re Not As Good As We Think We Are
It’s easy for us to pat ourselves on the back for our goodness. But perhaps we are a bit too smug. Our persistent feelings of guilt serve as a guide – a reminder – that all is not well. They serve to call us to account to the One who left us here, and who expects something of us if we are to be in relationship with Him. These feelings of guilt provide the backdrop of bad news, the kind of news from which we naturally shy away. The kind of bad news that sets the stage for the ultimate Good News of the gospel.
So, next time you encounter this response, you might suggest that the nonbeliever consider his frame of reference. Immersed in a sinful culture, inhabiting flesh and blood bodies whose weakness overcomes the willingness of the spirit, we may be as unable to see ourselves for what we truly are as the fictional pirates above would be. In short, we may not be in the best position to know if we are as “good” as we pretend.
We Need a Savior
Fortunately, there is a better answer, one that does not require us to earn our way back to God’s presence. But until we see our need for a Savior, we’re not likely to find the answer that is waiting to set us free.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Old Testament vs. New Testament God: Anger vs. Love? (MP3 Set) (DVD Set) (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. 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.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
Do You Have “Blood on Your Hands”? 3 Questions About “Trans Rights”
PodcastDo you have blood on your hands? Are Christian beliefs motivating trans people to commit the unthinkable act of suicide? The alarming prevalence of depression among people battling gender dysphoria has prompted advocates of the transgender movement to demand political action, proposing that the solution lies in the push for “trans rights”. But what happens when the pursuit of these “rights” collide with basic human rights?
This week, Frank tackles a very sensitive question from a listener regarding the outcry for more “trans rights” by the parents of a young trans person who tragically decided to end his life prematurely. As Frank shares some of the details of this heartbreaking story, he’ll address the erroneous notion that being in opposition to “trans rights” is what caused the untimely death of their child. During this podcast episode, Frank will answer questions like:
Frank will also highlight a few examples of how “trans rights” have compromised the overall safety and privacy of young women and briefly discuss how so-called gender affirming care has contributed to the current mental health crisis. Later in the episode, Frank will identify the root cause of the staggering suicide rates among transgender people and explore solutions that can offer true healing for those within the trans community. To learn more about the major flaws of transgender ideology, be sure to pick up the updated and expanded copy of Frank’s book, ‘Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism‘.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Article: A Landmark Finnish Study is Changing How We Approach Transgender Kids
Article: Adversity is the Key to Raising Resilient Kids (highlights Abigail Shrier’s new book ‘Bad Therapy‘)
Frank’s Book: Correct, Not Politically Correct
Timothy’s Tale: Unveiling Undesigned Coincidences In Paul’s Journeys
4. Is the NT True?Because Paul crisscrossed paths with many folks, some repeatedly, it’s quite enlightening to compare how these people are portrayed in the book of Acts with what Paul hints at in his own letters. Among these characters, Timothy stands out as a particularly intriguing figure.
In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul mentions sending Timothy, his “beloved and faithful child in the Lord,” to jog the Corinthians’ memory about Paul’s ways in Christ. Now, from this passage alone, it’s a bit tricky to figure out if Timothy was sent before the letter or with it. In 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, though, Paul makes it clear that Timothy was dispatched before the letter was penned. He talks about Timothy’s impending arrival as something distinct from when the Corinthians would receive the letter itself – “When Timothy comes, …”
Contradictory Accounts?
Now, when you stack these two passages side by side, a puzzling question pops up. If Timothy was sent first, why didn’t he show up first? And if he did arrive first, why bother sending instructions afterward on how to welcome him?
The most sensible answer is that Timothy, even though sent ahead, must have taken a more roundabout route to Corinth. The quickest way from Ephesus, where Paul was writing, to Corinth would be by ship, covering the distance in a jiffy with a favorable wind. But, as we dig into Luke’s account in Acts 19:21-22, we discover that Timothy, when leaving Ephesus, opted for the overland route, traveling up through Macedonia.
We stumble upon these coincidences that weren’t orchestrated but fit together seamlessly. Paul’s letter doesn’t mention a word about Timothy’s trek through Macedonia, and Acts doesn’t bring up Paul’s letter. Yet, Acts offers the only sensible explanation for these offhand remarks Paul makes in his letter, creating this neat puzzle where the pieces just click into place.
How Did The Philippian Church Know Timothy?
But there’s more about Timothy. When Paul writes the church at Philippi, he says:
In this passage, it’s pretty clear that the Philippians knew Timothy and had seen him working alongside Paul. The nifty part is how there’s this subtle and smooth connection between what’s written in Philippians and the story in the book of Acts. So, in Acts 16, Paul starts traveling with Timothy, a convert from around Lystra and Iconium. After that, the Acts story gets into Paul’s travels across Asia Minor to Troas and then Macedonia.
When they hit Philippi, the story dives into Paul’s missionary adventures, detailing his struggles and hardships. Acts 17 continues the journey, covering Paul’s move from Philippi to Thessalonica, where things get pretty heated, and he has to leave. Then comes this sneaky part: the brothers secretly send Paul and Silas to Berea at night, and when they get there, they hit up the Jewish synagogue. That’s when Timothy pops back into the picture:
So, even though Timothy wasn’t explicitly mentioned during the journey, Acts 17:10-15 shows that he was indeed rolling with Paul at Berea. Silas gets more spotlight in the story, but Acts hints that Paul had more buddies along, including the author himself. This revelation about Timothy being there in Berea fills in the gaps and explains how the Philippians knew about Timothy’s skills and saw him working hard with Paul, like a son with his father.
What’s interesting is that Acts doesn’t just say Timothy was in Philippi. You have to connect the dots by piecing together Timothy’s role from different mentions in Acts. It’s not like the author of Acts was trying to be all sneaky and create a link with Philippians. Instead, this connection adds weight to the idea that the author of Acts really knew Paul’s life inside out, including his friends and moves during that time.
Paul Alone In Athens
But wait, there’s another nice example of an undesigned coincidence in this same passage. So, in Thessalonica, Paul’s ministry gets interrupted by a rowdy bunch of Gentiles riled up by the local Jews, prompting a quick escape with Silas for Berea (Acts 17:10). When the troublemakers catch wind that Paul’s still preaching in Berea, they show up, causing a ruckus. Paul has to skedaddle to Athens in a hurry, leaving Silas and Timothy behind (Acts 17:14). Now, Acts doesn’t spill the tea on why Paul left Silas and Timothy hanging. But then, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5 gives us the missing piece:
Turns out, under the circumstances, Paul sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to check on the folks there and report back while Paul was busy in Athens. This neatly clears up the unexplained bit in Acts, making sense of the separation from Silas and Timothy.
Timothy’s Mixed Upbringing
Here’s another neat example of undesigned coincidences, from Paul’s second letter to Timothy, where describes Timothy rather than mentioning his travels:
Clearly, Paul’s talking about the Jewish scriptures here, but he doesn’t give any hint as to how Timothy, who wasn’t circumcised until after his conversion as a young man (as mentioned in Acts 16:3), got to know them. The missing piece of information falls into place when we check out Acts 16:1:
Seems like Timothy’s Greek dad wasn’t on board with the whole circumcision thing. But his Jewish mother made sure he got schooled in the scriptures of her people. Paul even names his mother and grandmother in 2 Timothy 1:5.
Timothy’s Knowledge Of Paul’s Persecutions
But there’s more! In 2 Timothy 3:10-11, Paul talks about how Timothy followed his teachings, behavior, and experiences, especially the tough times in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. Now, the Antioch here isn’t the famous one in Syria, but a different one in Pisidia. Acts 13 in the Bible says that Paul and Barnabas got into trouble there, stirred up by the locals. They had to skip town and faced more problems in Iconium, so they moved on to Lystra and Derbe.
In Acts 14, it mentions Paul getting stoned and dragged out of the city by angry folks from Antioch and Iconium. This lines up perfectly with what Paul mentions in 2 Timothy 3:10-11 about the persecutions he faced in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. It matches not only in the cities but also in the order Paul talks about them.
Here’s another cool tidbit: In Acts, Lystra and Derbe are often mentioned together, just like in 2 Timothy. But, interestingly, Paul doesn’t face any troubles in Derbe, and sure enough, it’s not mentioned in the list of persecutions in 2 Timothy. So, there’s a perfect match between what Paul says and what happened in Acts.
Now, Paul also implies that Timothy saw or at least knows about these persecutions. Acts backs this up. In Acts 15:36, it says Paul went on a second journey to check on the folks he converted during the first trip. In Acts 16:1-2, we find out that Timothy, a disciple from Lystra, was well-regarded in the community. This suggests that Timothy might have been converted during Paul’s earlier visit when all the tough times were going down. So, it looks like Timothy was there, or at least very aware of what Paul went through in those cities.
What This All Means
Does the fact that these passages don’t match up exactly, and they’re scattered throughout without sounding alike, make you think someone’s trying to trick us? Or does each one just fit naturally where it is? If it’s the latter, it’s pretty unlikely that someone cooked up these connections on purpose. These accounts sound like what we would expect if different people, at different times and places, are sharing different parts of the same story.
Think about it this way: Imagine someone trying to copy an important document, but they change a few words here and there to make it seem original. We can see this happening with some writings from the second century, like the “Gospel of Peter,” where they use phrases almost identical to ones found in well-known Gospels to make their writing seem legit:
Here, the similarities are on purpose to make it seem real. But when we look at Acts and the Pauline letters, they’re not like that. They don’t match word for word, and they’re connected in more subtle ways. This makes it pretty impressive evidence that they’re telling us the truth about what really happened, without needing to fake anything.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
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)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Erik Manning is the creative force behind the YouTube channel Testify, which is an educational channel built to help inspire people’s confidence in the text of the New Testament and the truth of the Christian faith.
Originally published at: Is Jesus Alive?
Does the Resurrection of Jesus Prove He is the Jewish Messiah? with Eric Chabot
PodcastIf Jesus rose from the dead, wouldn’t that also demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the Messianic prophecies were about Him? Even if you can convince an orthodox Jew that the resurrection actually happened, it still may not be enough to persuade them that Jesus is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. Where exactly is the disconnect and why do so many Jews (and even Christians) have trouble detecting the link between these prophecies and the events described in the Gospels?
This week, Frank invites Eric Chabot, author of the book ‘The Resurrection of the Jewish Messiah‘, and contributor to the new book, ‘Faith Examined‘, to explore the Old Testament’s references to the Messiah and the great significance of the literary theme of the third day throughout the Scriptures. Serving as the chapter leader of Ratio Christi at The Ohio State University, Eric will share how Ratio Christi is reaching college students with the Gospel on his local campus and also touch on why there is a Jewish aversion to accepting Jesus as the Messiah. During their conversation, Frank and Eric will answer questions like:
As you’ll hear during this midweek podcast episode, key passages from the Old and New Testaments include symbolism, typology, and metaphors, all pointing to the reality that Jesus meets all of the qualifications of the Jewish Messiah. Because of his background growing up in a Jewish community, Eric has a passion for drawing Jewish people to Christ and has used these clues from the Scriptures to foster meaningful conversations with people in that demographic. If you want to dig deeper into the significance of the Messianic prophecies, be sure to pick up a copy of Eric’s book ‘The Resurrection of the Jewish Messiah‘ and also read his chapter on this topic in the new book written by CIA graduates called ‘Faith Examined: New Arguments for Persistent Questions, Essays in Honor of Dr. Frank Turek.’
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.
RESOURCES MENTIONED DURING THE EPISODE:
Faith Examined book: https://a.co/d/hvS13kK
The Resurrection of the Jewish Messiah: https://a.co/d/1AvTNHd
Our Children: The Greatest Mission Field
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBe assured that when the knock comes at your door, it will be unannounced, it will be warrantless, and it will come at the most inconvenient time.
The social service worker will be polite, but cool and business-like. Despite your confusion, fear, and even anger, you dare not lose your poise because that will ultimately be used against you. You will learn in short order that your refusal to cooperate will be futile; the social worker will just return with whatever government force is needed to remove your children from your home.
They’re Coming for Your Children…
After initial pleasantries, your children will be sent to a separate area where they will be questioned individually outside of your presence. You will not be told who made the accusation, only that an anonymous report has been made and the worker is compelled to do a “welfare check” on your children.
Make no mistake, the social worker will have the power to place your children in a government-approved foster care facility to “protect” them from the harmful effects that they are exposed to in your home. Then the investigation will begin in earnest with court hearings and public exposure to the “problems” created by your care of the children.
For the Crime of Christianity…
You may wonder what crime could trigger such a harsh result. Potential sexual or physical abuse? Neglect of the children’s health, medical, or nutritional needs? No. The time soon may come in America where this scenario occurs simply because you are teaching your children Christian values instead of what the secular culture and government want them to learn.
This whole picture may seem repugnant to you, and it should. It also may seem somewhat far-fetched to you, but it shouldn’t. The groundwork for this scenario is already in place. Until recently, it has been used mostly for good to address the issues of child abuse and neglect. But just as once-trusted institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department have abused their power for political purposes, it appears that the Department of Child Services in the state of Indiana has now been weaponized against conscientious Christian parents.
According to a report from the Indiana Family Institute (IFI), the Indiana DCS removed their gender-confused child out of the home of Mary and Jeremy Cox in June 2021 because of their biblically-based beliefs about sex and gender. Apparently, they were also not referring to their son with his preferred cross-gender name and pronouns, nor were they endorsing his self-identification as a girl because of their Christian faith. The overzealous case workers rationalized their demonic behavior by saying:
In a moronic ruling, the family trial court in Indiana agreed with the DCS position and removed their son from the home and even went so far as to bar the parents from speaking to their son about the topic of sex and gender. This Christian mother and father then asked the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the case, but it declined.
How Will the Supreme Court Rule?
Now, they have petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review the wrongful removal of their son from their home and SCOTUS is set to hear arguments about the matter probably in their April term. Their filed petition concludes with this language:
Indeed, unless God intervenes, SCOTUS intervention is ultimately necessary if the basic framework of the nuclear family in America is to survive. This, then, becomes one of the most crucial cases to come before our highest court in recent times including those involving abortion and same-sex “marriage.” All God-fearing eyes should be turned intently to see the ruling from SCOTUS when it is ultimately entered.
As for the Cox family, unfortunately, their confused son aged out in the “wonderful” world of Indiana foster childcare and is now an adult. Yet they continue to pursue this case to protect the rest of their children as well as your children and grandchildren and all Bible-believing families all across this nation.
KGB/Gestapo Tactics
The stark reality is that these Gestapo/KGB tactics are not confined solely to attacks on the teaching of the truths of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, it should be painfully obvious to all true Christians that our American culture is not friendly to the Bible’s message of sin, redemption, and transcendent morality. Our ruling elites do not want biblical truths passed on to the next generation because it interferes with their godless culture’s embrace of hedonistic excess.
What better way to accomplish this goal than through penetrating the minds of our innocent children with false history and false concepts of self-fulfillment while suppressing true critical thinking and logic. Their ultimate goal is an unthinking population that depends on the government for everything by creating generations who simply do what they are told and who lack the ability to evaluate real truth much less biblical truth.
This is why our vulnerable children come under attack beginning as early as preschool. Our would-be masters want to completely eradicate any thought of Christian concepts from our children’s minds before they can crystallize into true belief. Thus, they have engineered a swiftly eroding quality of our public education system along with a headlong attack against the entire family structure, beginning in the home.
We Didn’t Get Here Overnight
To be certain we did not get to this precipice overnight. Nevertheless, it is not too late for Christians to awaken from their slumber and realize that we are in a pitched battle with forces beyond our comprehension; and at stake are the precious, eternal lives of our own children and grandchildren.
As believers, we are well aware of the admonition of Paul in Ephesians 6:12, where he says:
By the same token, we also know that these times in which we are living in our nation are too challenging; they are too grave for us to sit idly on the sidelines any longer. We are not advocating a fanatical response, but if the very lives of our precious children are at stake, then the fainthearted need not apply. How long will we allow our cherished offspring to be sacrificed on the altars of demonic absurdity?
Our Greatest Mission Field
Simply put, true Christians need to be committed to singularly focused, prayer-filled efforts to raise our children in a godly and biblically based manner, regardless of the personal cost. Our children are the greatest mission field. The spiritual upbringing of these next generations of our children and grandchildren in the only truth that matters is essential both to the survival of America and to the eternal destiny of these treasured little ones as well. The gospel of Jesus Christ is so crucial that it is a hill upon which we will stand and die if necessary. Our children – are they not worth a new revolution if that is what it takes? If we say that we really love them, isn’t it time we started acting like it?
Recommended resources related to the topic:
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)
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge Phil Ginn began the role of President of Southern Evangelical Seminary in April 2021. After a distinguished career as both a lawyer and a judge, Judge Ginn retired as the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge for the 24th Judicial District in North Carolina. Over the course of his 22-year judicial career, he was privileged to hold court in almost 50% of the county seats in North Carolina. Upon retirement at the end of 2014, using his experience from four decades as an attorney and judge, Judge Ginn purchased a struggling horizontal pump company in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Over the next 3 years, he turned the business into one of the largest privately owned horizontal pump companies in the U.S. before selling the company in 2018. Besides his current role as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, he also works in real estate development, consulting, mediation, and as counsel on a variety of cases. Judge Ginn has been married to his wife, Lynn, for over 42 years. Together they have 4 daughters, 3 sons-in-law, and 5 wonderful grandchildren (he has pictures). He holds a B.A. from Appalachian State University, a J.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Doctor of Ministry from Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC.
Originally posted at: American Family News.