What is the eternal message of hope that we are privileged to have here in the United States (and other parts of the West) that many people around the world don’t have? It is the Gospel–the saving grace of Jesus Christ. And it was Jesus Himself who told us to go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS. But with only about 20% of the world speaking English (that’s only 1 out of 5 people), how can we reach the other 80% with not only the Gospel, but also with the evidence for Christianity? And how can that be accomplished most effectively without breaking the bank?

In this week’s podcast episode, Frank, Phoenix, and Jorge team up to discuss how CrossExamined is chartering unprecedented territories by way of cyberspace (today’s Roman roads). With the help of God, cutting-edge technology, and generous donors, we’re using artificial intelligence (AI) and social media in ways that they have NEVER been used before! During the episode, Frank, Phoenix, and Jorge will share some of the exciting details surrounding this brand-new endeavor, known as the “Kingdom AI Project”, and you’ll hear Frank speak languages that he really doesn’t speak! They’ll also answer questions like:

  • Why is it wise for Christians to use AI technology in this way?
  • Why is the Kingdom AI Project targeting Africa first?
  • What does the Tower of Babel and Pentecost have to do with any of this?
  • How is the Kingdom AI Project more cost-effective than traditional in-person missionaries?
  • How does the CE budget and online reach compare to RZIM (which sadly is no longer in existence)?
  • How can Christians all over the world get involved in the project to reach their local communities?

We are convinced that the Gospel message can overcome dark forces even in places where it’s prohibited to talk about Christianity. This could very well be the BIGGEST feat in the history of apologetics anywhere in the world, which is why we’re requesting all hands-on deck to help us reach this epic goal. Please join us today so that we can continue to grow God’s kingdom by sharing the evidence for truth and the Gospel message using over 30 languages to reach 3 BILLION PEOPLE across the globe!

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.

Watch the Kingdom AI Project video and support our mission HERE.

 

Download Transcript

 

How in the world did a biochemist with a Muslim father find his saving grace through Jesus Christ? Fazale “Fuz” Rana is president, CEO, and senior scholar of Reasons to Believe (RTB), an organization dedicated to communicating the powerful scientific case for God’s existence and the Bible’s reliability to both Christians and non-Christians. Though he initially embraced the evolutionary paradigm, he eventually drew the conclusion that only a Creator’s involvement could explain the elegance of biochemical systems. But how?

In this midweek podcast episode, Dan sits down with Fuz (a former agnostic) to discuss how science and faith intricately work together, ultimately pointing to the reality of intelligent design. Why did Fuz lose interest in Islam? What led him to embrace the Gospel message? How did biochemistry dislodge Fuz’s materialistic worldview? What ultimately led him to partner with RTB, and what is the hopeful future of this innovative apologetics ministry? Dan and Fuz will address all of these questions and MUCH more in this heartfelt (but informative) episode!

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.

 

Download Transcript

 

“No one is above the law.” So the popular saying goes, and no truer thing was ever said in a mere six words. This thought, and our Western system of justice which sprang from it, stands as a testament, and a tribute, to the philosophy that gives humanity its best chance for self-government and ordered liberty.

The philosophy that found its expression in this view was itself largely shaped by a Christian worldview, one in which our individual rights, and our equality under law, were grounded in a transcendent being who made us for a purpose. Our Founders certainly understood this when they declared their right to independence from Great Britain and affirmed that “all men are created equal.” In their view, this equality finds its roots in the “Creator,” who endows each person with “certain unalienable rights.” As the familiar phrase sets forth, among these rights are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Many secularists today have misapplied this thought, mistakenly asserting that this concept also applies to God. They fail – or refuse – to see the distinction between the Creator and the created, as they put God “on trial” for everything from genocide, “ethnic cleansing” and murder in Old Testament times to every instance of suffering in the modern world that God could, but fails, to prevent.

A moment’s reflection should make plain that God need not answer to us – he, indeed, is the one thing “above the law” for he is the law. He is no more subject to it, or answerable to us, than the computer programmer is to the rules he writes into a computer simulation. While God’s apparent indifference to the human condition may cause us to speculate about his nature, or his will, none of our opinions or our accusations will ever “make out a case against him.” This is simply nonsensical when one realizes what the concept of God entails.

Most people understand this intuitively. Take the prevailing view of abortion in many circles today: a majority of Americans apparently still support the notion that a mother has the right to end the life of the baby growing within her. Christianity holds, to the contrary, that it is always wrong to take innocent human life. Since the developing child is “innocent” and since he or she is “human life,” that should end the discussion. The reason it does not is that many people recognize that the baby’s life is different – the baby lacks self-awareness or developed intelligence and the baby is “dependent” upon his mother’s body for continued life. These factors, skillfully manipulated through the rhetoric of “choice,” lead many people – who refuse to think through what in fact is at play – into serious error.

Think of it this way: human beings, regardless of their age, level of intelligence, or degree of dependence on others are in a horizontal relationship with each other. We are all the same kind of creature. While we each possess distinct and different talents, and while opportunities for development differ, we are equal in the nature of our being. Though many wish to view the mother as “superior” to the child, in reality she is not. The mother of the child did not “create” the child she is bearing; the child was “begotten.” This may sound like mere semantics, but it is not. For it is the power to “create” from nothing – as God did in the Big Bang event – that gives the right to dictate to those that were created. Men and women, when they procreate, are but a link in the chain of life that God set into motion tens of thousands of years ago. They take part in the process; they are not the source of it.

If science ever leads to the creation of fully functional AI robots, human beings will be the “creators” and will have the right to do with those robots what they will. Having created them from raw materials, whatever rights they are eventually given will be dependent entirely on the will, and wishes, of those who created them.

As the Bible teaches, in God we live and move and have our being. This is literally true: the sum total of what we are is grounded in God’s creative power. If he were to stop thinking of us for even a moment, we would cease to exist. Our relationship to him is not one of equals, as we are entirely dependent upon him for our continued existence.

I’d say that gives God the power to define morality. It places him above, and as the source of, our earthly law. As created beings, we should spend less time judging God and more time listening to what he expects of us.


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated; downloadable pdfPowerPoint) by Frank Turek
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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. 

 

Can we REALLY believe in Noah’s ark? Practically speaking, the idea of a massive flood, a giant ark, a rainbow covenant, and the preservation of animals through the care of one small family on an ancient ship sounds outlandish at best. But are there legitimate answers to some of the most common objections raised by skeptics in regards to this well-known Bible story?

Earlier this month, Frank had the pleasure of visiting the Ark Encounter, which is an AMAZING exhibit that features a full-size replica of Noah’s ark based on the dimensions specified in the Bible. During his time at the Ark Encounter, Frank got to meet up with the founder, Ken Ham, and The Ark’s content manager, Dr. Timothy Chaffey. In this unique and exciting podcast episode, Tim joins Frank to answer some questions about Noah’s Ark and The Ark Encounter such as:

  • Around what time period did Noah enter the ark and how long did it take him to build it?
  • How did Noah track down all the different animals?
  • Could a million animal species fit on Noah’s ark?
  • What do young-earthers and old-earthers have in common?
  • Is there evidence for a global flood outside of the Bible?
  • What’s the origin story behind the Ark Encounter and were Kentucky tax dollars used to fund it?

Most atheists, scientists, and philosophers agree that space, time, and matter had a beginning out of nothing. While they won’t admit that God is the cause, they are admitting the evidence for the Bible’s greatest miracle–Genesis 1:1. And if Genesis 1:1 is actually true (and it is), then Noah’s ark is certainly possible! This podcast episode will only scratch the surface in the discussion of Noah’s ark, so be sure to pick up a copy of Tim’s book ‘Inside Noah’s Ark: Why It Worked‘ (co-authored by Laura Welch) and add an Ark Encounter visit to the top of your bucket list!

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.

Ark Encounter: https://arkencounter.com/

Purchase additional books by Tim here: https://bit.ly/49OOxvh

 

Download Transcript

 

What (if anything) can the Bible teach us about climate change? Arguably, the most controversial aspect of the climate change debate seems to be whether it’s occurring naturally or as a result of human technological advances. But with an issue as polarizing and politicized as it’s become over the last few decades, is there a rational way to work towards a solution that benefits everyone (along with our environment)?

In this midweek podcast episode, astrophysicist and best-selling author, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, joins Dan to discuss Hugh’s book ‘Weathering Climate Change: A Fresh Approach.’ Atheists and skeptics often question WHY God made the universe the way that He did, a question that Hugh will unpack for the audience in this episode. Hugh and Dan will also answer questions like:

  • What is God’s ultimate goal for humanity and the universe?
  • Does the Bible offer any insight as to how to approach the issue of climate change?
  • Why are so many species becoming extinct?
  • What are the benefits of an ice age cycle?
  • How could improving climate change impact the economy?

As you’ll discover in this podcast, the universe is just one of the tools that God will use to eradicate the problem of evil and suffering. But until that happens, we all have the responsibility to properly preserve our planet for future generations. Listen as Hugh offers his insight on the best ways to accomplish that goal and confronts some of the misconceptions surrounding faith, politics, and climate change.

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.

Reasons to Believe: https://reasons.org/

Hugh’s book: https://a.co/d/4mFfXjS

 

Download Transcript

 

Imagine a porcupine. He’s waddling around with his long pointy quills. He’s harmless, even cute until he gets scared or offended. Then he becomes an angry pincushion. Now image this porcupine is giant-sized, like a dinosaur. He’s bumping into things, knocking things over, leaving huge piercing quills behind him as if marking his territory. People and animals just stay out of his way for fear of getting trampled, stabbed, or otherwise canceled. Now imagine this porcupine is hyper-sensitive. He’s reactive, easily offended, easily frightened, distrusting, and very aggressive when upset. Now imagine he’s rainbow colored and you’re tasked with giving this huge moody multi-colored pincushion a great big hug! That’s what it feels like answering the question: “Is it biblical to be a Gay Christian?”

This is the kind of topic where it feels like any move is the wrong move. You can’t really hug a huge temperamental rainbow porcupine. The LGBTQ+ movement has grown into a cultural juggernaut, dictating new legislation, directing media, invading public and private schools, coopting corporations, butting into the healthcare system, reshaping social norms, even changing the English language. One of those linguistic innovations is the identity statement: “Gay Christian.” Our question today is whether it’s biblical to be a “Gay Christian”?

Loveless Truth or Truthless Love?
There is no way forward without risking injury and without offending someone. As Biblical Christians, all we can realistically hope to do with this triggering topic is to speak truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). As we try to answer whether the concept of “Gay Christian” is biblical, we do well to remember that we cannot responsibly sacrifice truth or love. We need both. And we need the wisdom to balance and leverage them for our best chance at pointing people to the God of the Bible. If we compromise too much we get truthless love. If we’re tactless and mean, we get loveless truth. Both distort Christ’s message. Both drive people away from the Faith. Loveless truth is no better than truthless love.

As Christians we have every reason to major on both truth and love, to balance them by way of wisdom. Sometimes it’s fine to be sharp and forceful with a truth jab. Other times we risk causing more spiritual injury in our delivery than they felt from their ailment. LGBTQ+ people can be incredibly diverse, but they are all human. That means at least three things: (1) they are hurting, (2) they’re sinners just like you and me, and (3) their only hope of salvation is in Christ alone. We’re in the same boat. With this in mind let’s see if we can bring some clarity to this prickly issue.

What does “Gay Christian” even mean?
The phrase “gay Christian” can point a few different directions. First it can be a description. It’s describing someone who is Christian and is same-sex attracted (whether practicing or not). It would be like saying, “I am a male-Christian,” “an Texan-Christian” or “a married, heterosexual, masculine, Christian who likes hot sauce, and weightlifting, and thinks about the Roman Empire at least once a day.” Descriptive language is perhaps the broadest, and least-problematic way to understand the phrase “gay Christian.” As a description, the phrase is just pointing out any true claims about a person. There is still a problem with this sense of “Gay Christian,” but we’ll get to that later.

Second, “Gay Christian” can be a group identity statement roughly equivalent to, “I affiliate with a brand of ‘Christianity’ that endorses homosexual practice.” Typically, that includes supporting gay-marriage, left-leaning politics, and progressive theology. Whether that brand of ‘Christianity’ is, in fact, Christian – that’s a different question for a different day. The point is, “gay Christian” could be (1) a description or a (2) group identity.

Third, “Gay Christian” can also be a personal identity statement. It’s saying that that individual, in his heart of hearts, his essence, his soul, is a “Gay Christian.” This is more than just a description. We can describe how a person is without identifying what that person is. Descriptive language alone doesn’t necessarily point out what defines the person. But when the phrase “Gay Christian” refers to one’s personal identity, that individual is defined as both gay and Christian in that order. “Gay” isn’t just a secondary, accidental, or unnecessary quality. It defines them. It’s not just how he is, or what he does. It’s who he is.

Critiquing the idea of “Gay Christian”
Of those three categories: (1) Description, (2) Group Identity, and (3) Personal identity, I will focus on that third sense: “Gay Christian” as one’s “personal identity.” There are problems with all three – since the word “gay” doesn’t only mean “same-sex attracted,” but often means more than that. It can refer to homosexual practice, gay lifestyle, gay-affirming politics and culture, and so forth. That sense of “gay” is a mismatch when paired with orthodox Christianity. Of course, people have tried to argue, from Scripture, that there’s no inherent problem with combining those, but that has never been a historic orthodox convention in Christianity.

What else do we need to know about LGBTQ+ issues?
Find out in “Correct, Not Politically Correct” by Dr. Frank Turek

 

Partial Truths
First we can commend this terminology for identifying “Christian” at the core of one’s identity. Christianity isn’t just something people toss on top of the pile, along with everything else in their lives. Biblically-speaking, to become a Christian means replacing all the other claims on your identity with God’s claim on you. Becoming a Christian means you are a new creation, “In Christ,” adopted into the family of God, no longer lost on your own, but found and claimed, no longer slaves to sin, but citizens of a new heavenly kingdom, (2 Cor 5:17; 1 John 3:1-2; Gal 5:1; Phil 3:20). All that means Christians are effectively redefined from the moment of salvation forward. The Apostle Paul says it this way:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20, NIV

So, the phrase “Gay Christian” is partly correct in the sense that Christianity isn’t just a descriptor or group affiliation, it’s an expression of one’s essence. It is one’s fundamental identity. Our identity is Christ-centered, not self-centered. Hence the name “Christianity” – we are “little Christs.”

That partial truth however, is not enough to redeem the phrase, “Gay Christian.” There are at least four problems with the phrase that, I suggest, disqualify the concept from standard usage in orthodox Christian circles.

Four Problems with Identifying as a “Gay Christian”

  1. It’s Unclear: Advocates for the phrase “Gay Christian” have been known to say that “Clarity is kindness.”[1] But the word “Gay” is ambiguous. It could communicate same sex attraction or homosexual practice. So, the expression “Gay Christian” creates confusion where clarity is needed. It would be more kind to replace that confusing label rather than unwittingly suggest to people that Christianity embraces homosexual practice.
  2. It’s Jesus+: Biblically speaking, Christians find their ultimate identity in Christ Jesus alone (Sola Christus). Not in Jesus plus our good works, plus nationalism, plus identity politics, or plus our sexual orientation. Whatever other features may describe and distinguish us (white, male, hetero/homosexual, American, nerdy, bookworm, pastor, backup dancer, etc.) all of these must be submitted to Christ’s lordship. No secondary identity should compete with His sovereign claim over us. This is important because our very identity can be an idol (not to mention a football in the game of identity politics). The title “gay Christian” adds to one’s identity in Christ by putting something in front of Christ. At best this is confused for mixing a secondary “identity” with one’s primary identity. At worst it makes an identity-idol out of one’s sexual orientation. By the way, this objection applies equally well to straight people. Neither hetero- nor homosexuality should compete with Christ in defining us.
  3. It can mean sin: The word “gay” can refer to temptation or practice. As a temptation, it’s not necessarily sinful but can easily become sinful depending on how one interacts with their temptation: surrendering to it, fantasizing about it, fixating on it, encouraging it, etc. And “gay” in the sense of homosexual practice is sin (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-28; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7). So, combining all that together, the phrase “Gay Christian” is deeply problematic for affixing to one’s Christianity something that might be sin, can readily turn into sin, and is itself a desire for sin. How could any of those affiliations with sin rightly serve in defining one’s identity in Christ? All those ties to sin are what Christ is delivering people from (in sanctification). That’s the identity of our old self, from back when we were “slaves to sin” (Rom 6:6). It’s not out new self since we are “declared righteous,” and that is what Christ takes on Himself since he has “become sin for us” so that we can be called holy and children of God (2 Cor 5:21). In Christ we’re not defined by our sin or by temptation to sin but by Christ Himself who saves us from sin.
  4. It’s Morally Absurd: Stepping back for a moment, the three senses of “Gay Christian” that we mentioned are all absurd. Whether it’s a “descriptor,” a “group identity,” or a “personal identity” the phrase “Gay Christian” is incoherent because we can’t just add any descriptor in front of “Christian” and still have a coherent, theologically sound, and Christ-honoring concept. This becomes abundantly clear when we start adding to our Christian identity other temptations which also have no righteous vent – Zoophile Christian, Pedo Christian, Voyeuristic Christian, Klepto Christian, or Homicidal Christian. I’m not saying that gay people are group-affiliated with all these evils. These are just examples of how absurd it is to combine our Christianity identity with a temptation to sin and somehow think that’s a legitimate pairing.

Why Words Matter
It bears repeating that we’re not just talking about descriptive statements. “Marybeth does this, looks like that, and is tempted by these things.” We’re talking about identity statements. Identity statements are attempts at expressing who we really are, not just how we happen to be at the moment. Speaking of repetition, if we repeat statements defining ourselves a certain way, that can have a fortifying affect on our sense of self. Repetition forms neural pathways, creating habits of thought, gradually shaping our character, and convincing us of the truth of something even if it’s not true.

The word we use to describe or identify ourselves can shape our sense of self by changing, limiting, or expanding how we think of ourselves. Our self-identifying terms lend momentum pushing us in their direction. Scripture has a lot to say against coarse insulting language and taming the tongue (Eph 5:4; Col 3:8; James 1:26). That applies to “self-talk” and identity statements too. None of this bodes well for the phrase “Gay Christian.” A better alternative would be to just receive our identify as “Christian,” or “Christ-Follower,” “child of God,” or “Disciple.” These acknowledge that as Christians we no longer define ourselves. Christ defines us. We can still describe ourselves in truthful ways as gay-attracted, straight, celibate-single, good friend, poker player, tea-drinker, beat-boxer, meat head, etc. But it’s vitally important to distinguish secondary descriptors from one’s primary identity in Christ. And one of the most clear, helpful, and theologically responsible ways to do that is to put no competitors beside Christ. We are Christians, not hyphenated faithers or adjectival disciples. We don’t follow Jesus+. We follow Jesus. He defines our identity at a deeper level than any part of our sin nature, human nature, or natural fact about us.

We are Christians, not hyphenated faithers or adjectival disciples. We don’t follow Jesus+. We follow Jesus. He defines our identity at a level that’s deeper than any part of our sin nature, our human nature, or any natural fact about us.

 


Endnotes

[1] Preston Sprinkle and Gregory Coles, “Faith, Sexuality, and Gender Conference,” [Conference] Center or Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, (Pella, IA: Third Reformed Church, January 11, 2023).


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated; downloadable pdfPowerPoint) by Frank Turek
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

 

This show will bless you if you have ever supported CrossExamined.org (and even if you haven’t). Just two weeks ago at the Unshaken conference in Nashville, TN, Frank was both shocked and honored to learn that a group of graduates from the CrossExamined Instructor Academy (CIA) began a book project back in 2019 called, ‘Faith Examined: New Arguments for Persistent Questions, Essays in Honor of Dr. Frank Turek’The first copy of that book was given to Frank that night! In this week’s podcast episode, Frank interviews the book’s editor, Professor and New Testament scholar, Clark Bates, who spearheaded the project. During their conversation, Frank and Clark answer questions like:

  • How did a festschrift in honor of CrossExamined come about?
  • Which apologists have contributed to the book and what are some of the key points they make?
  • Who is Richard Rohr and what is the so-called “Jesus Hermeneutic” that is popular amoung progressive Christians?
  • How do we know that way of interpreting the Bible is wrong?
  • How does Clark approach the reliability of Scripture?
  • How is this book actually an honor for all supporters of CrossExamined?

In addition to Clark Bates, contributors to the book include, Alisa Childers, Natasha Crain, Jorge Gil, Sean McDowell, Alex McElroy, Tim Stratton, Eric Chabot, Phil Fernandes, Melissa Dougherty, William Soo Hoo, and Eric Hernandez. A labor of love that was four years in the making, Faith Examined will help you respond to the most current objections to Christianity as it celebrates the contributions of CIA students and the dedicated supporters of CrossExamined.  Please click the link below to get this great book and support the work of Clark and the contributors!

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.

Purchase ‘Faith Examined’: https://a.co/d/1tmjbuz

Learn more about Clark here: https://bit.ly/40Hs6UA

Connect with Clark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/crbates1

 

Download Transcript

 

Do evangelical Christians hold political views that are “wildly extreme”? If the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage being solely between one man and one woman are extreme, then the answer is a resounding yes! Jihadist terrorism on the other hand? Not so much. Since when did defending basic human rights, freedom of religion, and free speech become extreme? Furthermore, why is the left so hesitant to condemn such heinous acts against humanity, even as those acts continue to threaten western civilization as we know it?

In this midweek podcast episode, Frank continues the discussion on attorney Marci A. Hamilton’s hit piece that accused House Speaker, Mike Johnson, of pushing theocracy in America. What are some of the glaring inconsistencies within Hamilton’s recent article? Is all religious truth irrational? Why did science arise in the Christian world but not the Muslim world? Frank will tackle all these questions and show more video evidence that representative Johnson is not at all guilty of being a theocrat.

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.

 

Download Transcript

 

Sometimes cults are easy to spot. Most everyone knows about the Jim Jones cult (People’s Temple), or David Koresh’s group in Waco, Texas (Branch Davidians). Those cults are easy to spot because doomsday theology and mass killing tend to make headlines. But some cults aren’t so easy to see. Personality cults can be hard to spot.

When people call a religious group a “cult” it usually means one of two things.

TWO TYPES OF CULTS
Type 1: Theological Cult
 – heretical theology deviating from core orthodox teachings of that religion. These cults spring from a parent-religion. Ex., Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are cult offshoots of Christianity.

Type 2: Sociological Cult – socially and psychologically dangerous practices like authoritarian and manipulative leadership, social isolation, abuse, threats, blackmail, “mind-control” etc. These may or may not have a parent religion.

This post is about personality cults, which fall under the second type. Personality cults may line up perfectly with historic Christian teaching, have all the right creeds, prayers, liturgy, and so on. But they have dangerous practices centering on a personality-driven leadership model.  Often that means one leader calls all the shots and may resort to underhanded and manipulative behavior to get his (or her) way. Here are the first six out of twelve signs that can help you identify if your church is a personality cult.

SIGNS OF A PERSONALITY CULT

1. One Charismatic Leader Is the Face of the Church

Personality cults center on one primary person, who typically has a magnetic and winsome personality. When he or she speaks, people listen. We’ll call this leader “Alpha” or “Al” for short. Alphas are often gregarious and extroverted, feeding off the respect and praise (or fear) of others. They are charismatic in the sense of persuasive influence. They are often natural leaders, drawing crowds most everywhere they go. Sometimes they are also charismatic in the sense of spiritual gifts (tongues, prophecy, visions, mysticism), but that’s not always the case. Bear in mind, there is nothing wrong with being a leadership-oriented charismatic person. Just because a person has tremendous social power within the church doesn’t mean they are abusing that power. But the more power people have, the more tempting it can be to abuse it, especially when they don’t have any accountability for their actions. Remember, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton, 1887). That’s why personality cults always have a strong personality at the center.

2. Narcissistic Leader

Al isn’t just a charismatic leader, he also has a big ego. I’m not just talking about confidence, and bravado, I’m talking about clinical narcissism. He tends to view all social dynamics as a competition, or a zero-sum game, that he’s trying to win. He can be remarkably crafty and manipulative in navigating social dynamics to acquire more allies, or to silence and cut off anyone who disagrees with him. Al’s ego is too insecure to tolerate a truth-teller disagreeing with him. That’s like having a spy in your ranks or letting an opponent play on your team. Al also craves an approving audience (whether he admits it or not) and if anyone disapproves he can be so devastatingly hurt/angered/indignant that he resorts to extreme measures against them.

Narcissism is fairly common in the U.S., so Al may have come across it naturally. Western cultures tend to reward confident dynamic people with jobs, promotions, and leadership positions. Narcissists exploit that fact. They are experts at talking-big, acting important, and dictating every narrative into a story about how great they are. Narcissistic alphas have tremendous pride about their ability to lead, their vision for the church, and so on. But they lack the humility, maturity, and emotional security to fill out that self-assured pride with actual competence. Likewise, Alphas tend to objectify people. Al may act like he values other people more than himself, as in Philippians 2:3, but he’s really just acting. In reality, he’s often just using people to feed his ego.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,” Philippians 2:3 (NIV).

3. Authoritarian Leadership-Model

Al is also the power broker for the church. Al may delegate minor decisions to other people (especially for matters that don’t interest him). But when it comes to major decisions about church direction, big events, membership policies, church discipline, and especially finances, Al sits at the head of the table. Sometimes Alphas are heavy-handed in exercising authority. But many times they are indirect, manipulative, and evasive. That way they can still get their way while still rationalizing the outcome as a “team effort” or a “group decision.”

Because of Al’s authoritarian role, church discipline is typically a straight-line from him to whomever, he believes, needs correction. Al often bypasses any “due process,” like the checks and balances prescribed in Matthew 18:15-17. In personality cults, church discipline often comes down directly from Al like a monarch declaring an absolute verdict. He may appeal to the elder board, presbytery, or leadership team. But as long as they are just “yes men” (see #4 – Yes Men) and he gets to dictate the narrative, then he still gets what he wants.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)

4. Other Leaders in the Church Are “Yes Men”

Al typically has several other “leaders” on his team, but he doesn’t really share power with them. They may have been invited into leadership, in the past, because they have clout, character and strong leadership ability, but they are only allowed to stay in leadership because they cooperate with Al. He likes them because they “rubber stamp” everything he says.  It’s circular reinforcement. He likes how they rubber stamp everything he proposes, and they like being part of his elite circle of leaders, the few and the proud who have the heart of such an important man.

Some of these cooperators are “yes-men” by nature, that’s their personality type.  They’re peace-keepers who “go along to get along.” Often they enjoy the privilege and status of being in the “inner circle,” so they don’t want to rock the boat. Other times people adapt to a “yes man” mentality because of group pressure, peer culture, or their growing appetite for Al’s approval.

Individually these people might be terrific independent thinkers, courageous, independent, and wise. But, when they get together at an 11am business meeting, and everyone is already hungry for lunch, their resolve may wane. When Al cleverly raises the most controversial proposal at 11:55am, “yes men” culture sinks in and all the “leaders” just follow the crowd, approving anything that lets them finish by noon. “Yes men” don’t have to be “suck-ups” (sycophants), but often they are. Mainly the yes men act as extensions of Al’s authority. They don’t offer any serious challenge, critique, or correction against Al even when he needs it most.

5. “Lone Wolf” Approach to Decision-Making

As much as Al can, he makes decisions directly without any serious input from the rest of the church. In his mind, he sees himself as the hero. Like the dashing and talented quarterback, he thinks of himself as the most important person on the team and the on-field coach. Everyone else’s job is to support Him so he can win the game for them. This direct-decision making style, to him, seems like common sense to him. By making as many decisions as possible by himself, it’s easier and more efficient for everybody. After all, it can keep the whole church working together toward the same unified vision of ministry without wasting time and energy quibbling through business meetings and deliberating over every vote.

6. Vindictive Church Discipline

Church discipline is a Biblical concept (see Titus 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). But in personality cults, church discipline is less like routine healthcare, and more like a spontaneous amputation. It isn’t healthy. It’s often petty and vindictive instead of restorative (Galatians 6:1). Often personality cults, under Al’s leadership, use gossip, shame, and backbiting to publicly humiliate people by either crushing their spirit so they leave forever or putting them in a dangerously vulnerable position for Al to swoop in like their savior and “restore” them (i.e., creating a codependent loyalist). When Al employs church discipline he is not necessarily aiming to use God’s word to correct false teachers (and every earthly teacher makes mistakes), though he may do some of that. Mainly he’s aiming at silencing critics, so the church is united around him. Never mind if those critics are speaking from God’s word, appealing to historic Christian teaching, or expressing humble godly wisdom. If they are criticizing Al or second-guessing his decisions then they are dissenters, trouble-makers, and enemies of the faith. Al can rationalize punishing them with vindictive discipline to protect the fragile unity of his church.

“Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.” Galatians 6:1 (NIV)

For the next six signs of a personality cult
Stay tuned for “Is Your Church a Personality Cult? Part 2”!


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)
Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4 download)
Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Original post: https://bit.ly/46ndmfs

 

Are Christian politicians plotting to turn America into a theocracy? That’s precisely what the woke media outlets want you to think, often accusing Christians of trying to violate the “separation of church and state”. They also accuse Christians of trying to legislate morality. But if Christians and conservatives don’t have the “right” to legislate morality, who does?

House Speaker, Mike Johnson, was recently accused of being a theocrat in an article published by The Guardian titled ‘Mike Johnson, Theocrat: The House Speaker and a Plot Against America.’ In this week’s podcast episode, Frank reviews the scathing article that was written by attorney Marci A. Hamilton who analyzes an old clip from Representative Mike Johnson. Frank will also address questions like:

  • What is the true definition of a theocracy?
  • Should principles found in the Bible be eradicated from all public policy?
  • What objective source do Leftists and atheists have for public policy?
  • Is the “separation of church and state”  in the constitution and is it even an issue?
  • Is there a difference between legislating religion and legislating morality?
  • Were the founding fathers anti-religious?
  • Does the Bible advise Christians to establish a theocracy?

Listen as Frank addresses some of the erroneous charges made against Mike Johnson and unpacks some of the political, moral, and apologetic implications of Hamilton’s accusations. Who exactly is the moral authority for non-Christians and those on the far left? All this and more will be discussed in this thought-provoking episode!

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.

 

Download Transcript