by Natasha Crain
I had a revelation last week that, in retrospect, was many years overdue. So overdue that it borders on embarrassing to admit this was a revelation in 2022. Here it is:
Mainstream media doesn’t try to be objective.
Now, before you laugh too hard, let me make a clear distinction: I’ve long known mainstream media is not objective. But I had strangely held onto the assumption that they thought they were being objective and just woefully lacked enough self-awareness to see how crazily biased they were.
What I realized last week is that of course they know how biased they are…whether they’ve ever stopped to acknowledge the changed nature of so-called “news” or not. We’ve simply drifted over time into a land where the unstated new normal is that virtually all news is essentially op-ed.
Perhaps the reason I naively held onto the idea that news is inherently supposed to be objective is that I started out as a broadcast journalism major in college. Way back in the ancient days of 1994, I was taking classes that presupposed every good journalist sought to be objective. Our news story homework assignments would come back to us with the finest of edits, designed to carefully root out any trace of bias. After all, if we ever wanted a shot at working for places as heralded as CNN was at the time, we had to learn how to be…unbiased.
What a crazy thought today.
Not only is mainstream media not trying to be objective, but they’re also openly advocating for specific viewpoints. And not only are they openly advocating for specific viewpoints, but they’re also strategically manipulating public thought.
Psychological manipulation over time in the search for control over people’s thinking is called gaslighting. It’s the process of making someone believe they’re crazy and question their entire view of reality.
Maybe that sounds dramatic, but I don’t think it is. There is a coordinated effort amongst mainstream media sources to achieve a specific type of public influence today—an influence directed toward achieving a uniformity of thought that’s nearly always at odds with a Christian worldview.
While Christians realize this to varying degrees, I don’t believe we’re collectively thinking enough through the implications of just how much this media sea change has affected, is affecting, and will affect both our own worldview and the worldview of those around us.
Consider the significance of the following five implicit messages that mainstream media constantly trumpets in a variety of ways.
1. “Pretty much everyone agrees with how to view issues of cultural importance. If you’re one of the ones who disagree, you’re on the extreme fringe of society. That should tell you something about the accuracy and reasonableness of your views.”
In the early 1980s, there were fifty independent companies that owned the majority of media in the US. But by 2011, just six conglomerates controlled 90 percent of media. The fact that a handful of companies control nearly all media outlets makes it possible to present a unified viewpoint on any issue. It looks to media consumers as though the “authoritative” news voices around them are all aligned with certain viewpoints, but it’s really all coming from the same handful of companies.
Make no mistake: The appearance of unified thought coming from sources people perceive to be representative of culture at large is very powerful—especially when you’re in a worldview minority. As I discuss at length in Faithfully Different, it’s estimated that only 6 percent of Americans have a biblical worldview (accepting core teachings of the Bible). Yes, 65 percent of Americans identify themselves with the label “Christian,” but the vast majority of self-identified Christians hold beliefs in conflict with basic biblical teachings about things such as the existence of objective morality, the reality of heaven and hell, the nature of God, and much more.
If you’re in the 6 percent whose worldview is based on what the Bible teaches, you’re going to feel the pressure of seeing that nearly everyone in culture—including those who identify as a Christian—thinks differently. And media wants to capitalize on that aspect of our humanity that makes us question our beliefs just because they differ from the norm. But remember: There’s no such thing as democracy when it comes to what’s true about reality; numbers will never determine truth.
2. “Here’s the language that’s acceptable to use if you’re going to be an acceptable member of society.”
Beyond the uniformity of viewpoint achievable due to the structure of media ownership, there’s uniformity even at the detailed level of language. That’s because there’s a language guide that has long functioned as the default style manual for mainstream news organizations. It’s called the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook.
The AP Stylebook goes far beyond what words everyone should capitalize in a headline or when to hyphenate; they give viewpoint guidance as well. They recently issued, for example, a guide for coverage on transgender issues.
Ironically, the guide begins, “Journalists on all beats must be able to write about and interview transgender people using accurate, sensitive, unbiased language.” But what follows is anything but unbiased. As a small sampling of the guide, media is told to:
- adopt the language “sex assigned at birth” rather than something like “birth gender” or “born a girl,” presumably to emphasize how arbitrary the sex “assignment” decision is;
- describe a transgender person using phrasing such as “is a woman” rather than “identifies as a woman,” presumably to emphasize the certainty of a person’s new identity;
- avoid terms like “biological male,” which they say are used by “opponents of transgender rights” to “oversimplify sex and gender”; and
- not use phrasing that “misgenders people or implies doubt, such as former men’s swimmer or currently competes as a woman.”
And that’s just a small fraction of the content. It’s very clear that journalistic expectations now include using language in a way that accepts and promotes the mainstream secular narrative. The more the public hears carefully curated phrasing designed to subconsciously transform how we view issues, the more those who refuse to use such language will be viewed with resentment. Once again, the idea is that this is where society at large is, and if you’re not there with your words, there’s something wrong with you.
(If you’ve marveled at how mainstream media can euphemistically refer to the intentional killing of preborn babies as “abortion care,” this is the same strategy at work. Transform the language, and you’ll transform how people think.)
3. “These are the subjects that are most important to know about and discuss.”
Every day, thousands and thousands of editorial decisions are made as to what makes the news. In other words, before we even get to the bias in how stories are told, we have the bias of what subjects are even selected to tell.
One study, for example, showed that the major broadcast networks gave three times more airtime to the pro-choice Women’s March than to the pro-life March for Life, despite comparable participant numbers and location. If you had been watching these networks, it would have been easy to assume that the pro-choice Women’s March was far more culturally significant, even if that wasn’t necessarily the case.
I regularly visit the Facebook news tab to track this phenomenon and see what they’re pushing users to consider important. From the looks of it, they really want me to be aware when a celebrity changes pronouns (Demi Lovato this week), when new state abortion restrictions have (allegedly) jeopardized a woman’s health, and that Christian nationalism is a terrifying threat.
Story selection strongly shapes our view of what the “world” is talking about, and that can significantly influence what we believe is most important if we’re not careful. But there are plenty of issues important for Christians that you’ll rarely see discussed in mainstream media. Wins for religious freedom, for example, will likely not see the light of day, or if they do, they’ll be covered negatively. Christians need to take it upon ourselves to stay informed about issues mainstream media won’t discuss.
(For religious freedom issues in particular, I highly recommend following the Alliance Defending Freedom.)
4. “These are the things you need to be very afraid of…and the solutions that will make you safe again.”
Whether it’s Covid, monkeypox, climate change, the loss of supposed “abortion rights,” or the idea that the world is one step from nuclear annihilation, continually perpetuating fear drives ratings and clicks. Frankly, that’s just business. It’s how they make money. But fear is also undoubtedly used strategically to push people to favor desired solutions.
This is a tactic that works with just about anyone—Christian or not—because it speaks to our human nature. We just have to be self-aware enough to recognize it.
When people are scared for themselves, they’re more likely to hand over freedoms to the government to ensure some measure of safety. But the bigger the government control in the name of safety for all, the lesser the tolerance and rights for any who won’t fall in line.
And when people are scared for others, they’re more likely to accept positions that might otherwise be at odds with their own moral knowledge. I’ve read countless comments from Christians, for example, who are afraid to take a stand against so-called gender affirmation surgeries for teens because they’ve been told teens will commit suicide if they aren’t affirmed in a chosen gender. Media sees what fear can drive and continually perpetuates those statistics to sway views. (Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters is a must-read on this subject.)
Similarly, many Christians claim to be pro-life personally but don’t support banning abortion because media has made them fear that abortion bans will be responsible for women dying from situations like ectopic pregnancies (this is completely false.)
When people are scared, whether for themselves or others, it gives media a reason to take the presumed moral high ground and demonize anyone who doesn’t support safety. That’s effective because now you’re not someone who simply disagrees—you’re someone who is putting others in either mental or physical jeopardy. Christians on the receiving end of that characterization need to be deeply convicted of the biblical justification for their positions in order to not feel the psychological weight of thinking their views actually hurt others.
(And for the record, I’m not saying that there aren’t things to be legitimately concerned about. I’m specifically talking about how the media elevates appropriate levels of concern to a point where they can leverage crisis-level fear to their benefit and agenda.)
5. “It’s not just us saying these things…look at all these Christian leaders who agree. Trust them even if you don’t trust us.”
Someone not following the news closely might think that Christians are actually well represented in the media. After all, mainstream outlets somewhat regularly feature interviews with or articles about various Christian leaders. CNN, for example, recently featured a lengthy interview with high profile pastor Andy Stanley titled “The evangelical church faces a ‘state of emergency’ over the pandemic and politics, Andy Stanley says.”
But of course CNN was pleased to publish an interview with a well-known pastor criticizing the evangelical church and scolding Christians for taking sides in politics. That’s what they’d like to do themselves, but it’s more effective to have one of our own say it in the hope we’ll question any differing understanding we may have. (The interview was based on Stanley’s new best-selling book, Not In It To Win It: Why Choosing Sides Sidelines the Church, which I discussed the problems with in my last podcast— “Why Christians Must Care about Politics.”)
Similarly, The Washington Post is happy this week to feature the headline, “Clerics sue over Florida abortion law, saying it violates religious freedom.” Of course, they’re going for the shock value of suggesting religious leaders are for abortion as much as anyone else and that it’s actually a matter of religious freedom.
Any Christian writer/speaker/pastor whom mainstream media is happy to feature should take deep stock of why they’re receiving an invitation to the party. It’s not because media wants to genuinely share a Christian view that differs from the norm. It’s almost certainly because your view doesn’t differ from the norm that they want to promote your voice as an example to all those “other” Christians. And if your view doesn’t differ from the norm, it’s probably a good time to consider if the media has already done a really good job of convincing you to think like them.
The other day, my son and I drove by a used bookstore in town, and he noted the sign posted in the front: “Browse books and exchange ideas.” He jokingly said, “That might be the last place for the free sharing of ideas in America.” We laughed at the thought that the final outpost for the welcome exchange of differing views might be this tiny bookstore in our town. But the way mainstream media functions today, it’s not far from the truth that the open exchange of ideas will have to happen in places people very intentionally seek out.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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://bit.ly/3TIdZuj
What are we here for? | with David Limbaugh and Christen Limbaugh Bloom
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Why do we study apologetics? To win arguments? No! The ultimate goal is to know God personally (not just with head knowledge) and to make Him known. After all, if we just believe that God exists, we’re no better than the demons in James 2:19!
On a lawyerly quest for truth, #1 nationally best-selling author David Limbaugh returns with his co-author and daughter Christen to discuss their new book, The Resurrected Jesus: The Church in the New Testament. In this fifth and final installment of the bestselling Jesus series, this book is part commentary and part devotional and digs into the New Testament epistles with passion and demonstrates to readers that even though Paul penned these writings thousands of years ago, they are still applicable to the Church today. We might ask ourselves: What’s always worth fighting for? The truth of the Gospel!
Frank, David, and Christen discuss our identity in Christ, spiritual warfare, how we are saved by grace, not works, and the greatest threats facing the American church today. They also discuss the late great Rush Limbaugh and how his faith gave him strength during his last days while fighting cancer.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST along with other exclusive content, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and jump into some great discussions about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!
David and Christen’s book: https://amzn.to/3DrTJaV
Christen’s website: https://www.haplousofficial.com/
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
“Ser bueno” no es suficiente para la salvación
EspañolPor Al Serrato
El objetivo de la apologética cristiana es “defender” la fe, y el objetivo de la fe es proclamar las buenas nuevas de la salvación al mundo. Salvación, naturalmente, significa salvar, y una persona solo necesita ser salvada cuando está en peligro.
Pero pregúntale a mucha gente hoy en día en qué peligro se encuentra: puede que te digan que están preocupados por el estado de la economía o la inflación, o por el aumento de los índices de criminalidad en todo el país, o por las dificultades que puedan tener en casa. Es poco probable que agreguen que también están preocupados por el destino final de su alma, o que desearían poder estar seguros de que pasarán la eternidad en presencia de Dios en compañía de los que han amado aquí.
¿Por qué? ¿Por qué hay tanta gente hoy en día tan confiada en que su alma no necesita salvación? Aunque cada vez hay más ateos, la mayoría de la gente sigue reconociendo que hay un Dios que los creó a ellos y a todo lo que nos rodea. Sin embargo, aunque se hayan alejado de la fe que una vez conocieron, no parecen preocupados por cómo les juzgará Dios algún día. La mayoría de las veces, si se les presiona, el secularista moderno dará una variación de: “Mira, soy una buena persona, después de todo, y Dios me juzgará en consecuencia. No hay nada que me preocupe”.
Hay docenas de definiciones de “bueno”, pero para nuestros propósitos, vamos a suponer que la mayoría de la gente entiende “bueno” como algo parecido a “moralmente excelente, virtuoso o justo”. Es de suponer que Dios contará todas las acciones moralmente excelentes, virtuosas o justas que hayan hecho en su vida, y esto inclinará la “balanza de la justicia” para permitirnos la entrada al cielo.
Pero esta analogía, al reflexionar sobre ella, no ofrece mucha seguridad. Al fin y al cabo, una balanza solo se utiliza si hay algo que colocar en el otro lado, algo que haga contrapeso o mida uno de los lados. Si una acción “buena” inclina la balanza en una dirección, entonces no realizarla, o peor aún, actuar de forma decididamente no buena, mueve la aguja en la otra dirección. La mayoría de la gente estaría de acuerdo en que actuar de forma “egoísta”, es decir, tomar decisiones que sólo lo benefician a uno mismo y no a los demás en su vida, no es una forma “buena” de actuar. Pero el egoísmo forma parte de la condición humana. Los padres lo ven en sus hijos pequeños, y la mayoría de los padres intentan alejar a los niños del egoísmo para que tengan un comportamiento más altruista. A esto hay que añadir las veces que no nos limitamos a no hacer el bien, sino que hacemos el mal intencionadamente, sin importarnos el daño que nuestras acciones puedan causar a los demás. Visto desde esta perspectiva, tenemos un verdadero problema, porque Dios lo ve todo y lo sabe todo. Él vive eternamente y ve todo lo que hemos pensado o hecho; las cosas que podemos ver como en nuestro pasado lejano permanecen en su presente eterno. Para cualquiera que haga una evaluación clara y racional de la situación, hay motivos reales para preocuparse de que la balanza con la que se nos mide se incline rápidamente en nuestra contra.
Abordemos esto con un ejemplo moderno. Repetidos estudios nos dicen que un porcentaje cada vez mayor de la población estadounidense tiene sobrepeso u obesidad. Los expertos en salud advierten constantemente de las numerosas consecuencias negativas que puede acarrear el exceso de peso, que van desde un mayor riesgo de sufrir graves consecuencias para la salud a causa del Covid hasta diversos tipos de enfermedades y cánceres. Aunque algunos factores involuntarios pueden contribuir a la obesidad, este estilo de vida poco saludable aún tiene que ver con la elección repetida de comer en exceso. Sospecho que nadie empieza su vida queriendo inclinar la balanza en su contra eligiendo la gula como estilo de vida. Lo más probable es que el resultado final sea el producto de muchas pequeñas decisiones, tomadas repetidamente a lo largo del tiempo. De hecho, es difícil luchar contra la capacidad humana de autoengaño. Ignoramos la evidencia frente a nuestros ojos, y de la balanza, mientras seguimos sintiéndonos “bastante bien” con nosotros mismos y con las decisiones que tomamos. Nos aplaudimos a nosotros mismos por saltarnos el postre o empezar una dieta, mientras ignoramos la voluminosa cintura que muestra la dirección en la que se inclina la balanza.
Lo mismo ocurre, al parecer, con las cosas eternas. Nos aplaudimos a nosotros mismos por donar a la caridad, o por ser voluntarios en el comedor social. Nos damos una palmadita en la espalda cada vez que controlamos nuestro temperamento. Nos alabamos por nuestro sentido de la tolerancia y nuestro pensamiento iluminado y nos rodeamos de gente que siente y piensa igual. Al hacer esto, nos centramos solo en un lado de la balanza, olvidando recordar las muchas veces que nos quedamos cortos… o peor aún, que nos comportamos mal intencionadamente.
Confiar en nuestra capacidad para mantener la balanza inclinada a nuestro favor -en el lado de que lo “bueno” supere a lo malo- simplemente no tiene en cuenta cómo un Dios perfecto ve nuestro comportamiento. Al igual que la lucha contra la obesidad a través de la dieta y el ejercicio, la lucha es gradual. De hecho, podemos hacer muchas cosas buenas y dignas de alabanza. Pero al igual que el acusado en un tribunal terrenal, la fechoría que le ha llevado ante el tribunal no se pasa por alto solo porque el acusado pretende impresionar al juez con las muchas buenas acciones que ha realizado en su vida. El objetivo de la sentencia, al declararse culpable, es atribuir la consecuencia adecuada al mal comportamiento en cuestión. De nada servirá presentarse ante un Dios perfecto y pedirle que olvide nuestras fechorías porque también hemos hecho algo bueno en nuestra vida. ¿Cómo se puede impresionar a un juez que ha establecido la norma de la perfección y que Él mismo es perfecto en todos los aspectos imaginables?
La buena noticia, por supuesto, es que Aquel que hizo la balanza, y que hará el juicio, nos ha dado los medios para volver a equilibrar la balanza. Esto requiere primero que nos veamos a nosotros mismos con la suficiente claridad como para aceptar que no podemos alcanzar el estándar de perfección de Dios por nosotros mismos. Cuando Jesús cargó con nuestros pecados en la cruz hace dos mil años, nos proporcionó los medios para reconciliarnos con Dios, para ser “perfeccionados”, de modo que podamos estar preparados y ser dignos de estar en presencia de un ser perfecto. Es Jesús quien hace la obra de la salvación, no nosotros y nuestros escasos esfuerzos por ser “buenos”.
Intentar hacer el bien es un objetivo loable. Lamentablemente, hoy en día, con demasiada frecuencia, escasea. Pero hacer el “bien” no va a ser suficiente cuando llegue ese día, como llegará para cada uno de nosotros, en que nos encontremos con nuestro Hacedor.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato obtuvo su título de abogado en la Universidad de California en Berkeley en 1985. Comenzó su carrera como agente especial del FBI antes de convertirse en fiscal en California, donde sigue trabajando. Una introducción a las obras de C. S. Lewis despertó su interés por la Apologética, que ha seguido durante las últimas tres décadas. Comenzó a escribir Apologética con J. Warner Wallace y Pleaseconvinceme.com.
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
My Heavens – Not in the Stars
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Josh Klein
The Four Horsemen of atheism stormed the cultural, philosophical, and spiritual scene in the early 21st Century. Their dogmatic atheistic positions (or even anti-theist depending on who you talked to) were immediately popularized.
The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris comprised the crew. They rode their vitriol for religious thought smack into the mainstream, seeking, for what felt like the first time, to proselytize religious folk into converting to atheism. These men were dubbed “The New Atheists” by popular culture and seemed to take the world by storm, often denigrating their opponents as stupid and backwards.
Myth believing simpletons.
Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, sent ripples throughout Christianity and the religious mainstream as his caricature of God as the “flying spaghetti monster” made the world laugh at and ridicule Christianity, and other faiths, as ignorant at best and malevolent at worst. Daniel Dennett’s take on consciousness sought to wrest away the epistemic belief that religion alone could explain consciousness as a reality going so far as to indicate consciousness is but an illusion, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ work, God is Not Great, sought to expose religion as a poison for the masses that results in horrific abuses of power and violence. But all of these men did not make the waves that seemingly even-handed Sam Harris did.
Sam Harris, with his quiet and unassuming persona, engaged in discussions differently than his cohorts. Hitchens would engage in sophistry and sarcasm, Dawkins with loathsome denigration, and Dennett with condescension. Sam Harris was different. I found the tone of the other three off-putting and their arguments either humorous but unconvincing or intellectual but dull. However, Harris had a way about him that appealed to me. I believe it was his unwavering commitment to objective morality and the honest way he evaluated differing religions that drew me to him. Harris has been honest in his complimenting of what he believes to be Christianity’s positives while simultaneously holding Christians’ feet to the reasonable fire.[1]
I found his style winsome, even if his words were not, and his reasoning levelheaded and unemotive. He was, in a word, convincing. His seminal work, The Moral Landscape, sought to deal with a substantial problem in the atheistic realm. Without God as a moral standard bearer are we left with moral subjectivism?[2] And if so, who is to say that the Nazi’s were, indeed, evil? Or that murder is unjust? The moral argument for the existence of God remains one of the more powerful arguments in favor of theism[3] but Sam rightly understood that embracing moral subjectivism was untenable for the reasonable man, and thus, an effort at advancing objective moral values based on atheism was born. For Sam, a moral landscape could be (he might say ought to be) laid using scientific reason, rationality, and, as he puts it, facts.
Sam’s commitment to objective moral values based on scientific facts intrigued me, and his book laid out what seemed to be a plausible explanation of objective morality. That is, until the reasoning was challenged. Upon further investigation one finds that Sam often smuggles in assumptions about human flourishing to make his argument palatable. While Sam addresses the what of morality he can never quite get to an honest why, as his discussion with Jordan Peterson revealed only a few years ago.[5] What are these objective moral values? Well, they are whatever Sam says they are. Certainly, they could not be grounded in Nazism or Islam. However, one could certainly argue (and both do) that both Nazis and Muslims believe they seek to contribute to the natural flourishing of humanity. Without realizing it, Sam has hitched his wagon to moral relativism by virtue of the fact that scientific facts do not adequately explain human flourishing.
It should come as no surprise that Harris, admittedly on the left end of the political spectrum and extremely vocal opponent of Donald Trump, said this concerning the 2020 Election cycle’s silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story:
When pressed by the hosts of the podcast on his statement, one of which had a problem with the idea that a conspiracy ought to be used to deny office to any political candidate, Sam Harris doubled down, likening the conspiracy to that of a room full of scientists getting together to knock an asteroid off a collision course with earth. Some might be stunned that Sam would say such a thing, considering his distaste for subjectivism. In full consideration of his work, however, it is perfectly clear that he feels it necessary to be the arbiter of what is and is not objectively moral. To say it another way, Sam Harris, to himself, is a god.
Sam Harris is a coherent communicator, but his positions are often in conflict. His embrace of objective morality as an atheist is admirable but his assertion that free will is illusory is cumbersome to the argument and seems to stand diametrically opposed to it. If free will is illusory, then how are any agents morally culpable for their actions and how does objective morality fit in? Harris insists that the two are not at odds, but his insistence struggles to hold up to scrutiny. Alone, his arguments seem consistent. Combined, they often run directly at odds with one another. One cannot live life according to the philosophy espoused by Harris in a consistent manner, which is why Sam often indicates that living within the illusion is necessary.
It is in this manner that Sam is both the most and least effective new atheist. Take, for instance, Sam’s openness to the multi-verse theory:
In fairness to Sam, he does not himself espouse the multi-verse there but he seems interestingly open to the idea from a metaphysical perspective. Which, to me, makes his statements concerning the idea of heaven even more perplexing:
As I said on twitter, I used to like Sam Harris. I thought his critiques of Christianity were necessary (even if flawed) and that he was willing to dialogue about faith instead of simply debating it, but Harris has a nasty habit of building theologically ridiculous straw men only to knock them down with a smirk as if he’s accomplished something.
Whether Sam believes it or not, heaven (God’s dwelling place), has never (in the mainstream of the Christian faith) been understood to be in outer space. This critique of the theology of Heaven is meant to denigrate his intellectual opponents as just as ignorant as Grecian theologians believing in a literal Mount Olympus.
This has not been the orthodox understanding of the heavenly realm for millennia, if ever. As Randy Alcorn states:
“The present, intermediate Heaven is in the angelic realm, distinctly separate from Earth.”
Randy is not making this up out of thin air. Though we do silly Sunday School depictions of heaven in the clouds or speak of heaven in human terms as “above” us, this is not reminiscent of the real theology. There is no biblical or theological position that indicates heaven is physically in outer space where telescopes can see. This is not Thor.
One might say, “Sam Harris is a naturalist so he is presupposing that if a heaven exists then it must be in outer space where we could see it.” But this argument fails for two reasons. The first is that when engaging with a religion’s theology you must engage with their intended meaning to a have a meaningful debate. For instance, if I were to debate with a Muslim the nature of Allah, I cannot smuggle in my understanding of the Trinity to define Allah. If I apply my own view of the divine onto Allah then I have done a disservice to the conversation. Sam must interact, not with what he thinks heaven would be if it exists, he must interact with what Christians say that heaven is. He can deny its existence (just as I would with Allah) but he cannot do so based on false premises.
The second reason this defense fails is because of Sam’s already soft position on the multi-verse. If one can see the multi-verse as plausible then how can one so glibly dismiss a heavenly realm as impossible and ascribe the characteristics of this realm to that one? Sam would not do a believer in the multi-verse the disservice of this uncharitable presupposition concerning other universes and so, he does not need to do this disservice to the arguments for heaven either.
Scripture teaches that the current heaven is a place in the angelic realm. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 6, 2 Kings 6, Daniel 10:20 and John 18:36 all indicate such. More specifically, the martyrdom of Stephen indicates a linking of the realms as well.
In Acts. 7:56, as Stephen is being stoned, he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (NASB). In Daniel 10, Acts 7, and Acts 9 we notice a phenomenon about the current heavenly realm. It can be revealed to specific individuals and hidden from others. Which means, the realm, though physically and spiritually in existence, stands outside our concept of this physical plane.
When Jesus ascends in Acts 1:9 there are many that might say Jesus ascended into heaven. This might mean the physical sky! But it doesn’t. A careful reading of the passage at hand will notice that the writer says, “And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” This brings back imagery of Isaiah 6 and the glory of God.
In all these instances, the angelic/heavenly realm is not indicated to be in the stars themselves. Sam’s treatment of the matter was shallow and misrepresents, or misunderstands, the Christian doctrine of heaven. In scripture there are two heavens, one represents the sky and stars (the heavens) the other, the angelic realm. The delineations are clear and obvious to even the casual observer. Sam’s unevenness in handling this topic undermines his credibility as a good actor on the philosophical stage and highlights the arrogance of his atheistic belief. In this short interview Sam reveals why his objective morality without God is nonsense and why is objections to Christian theology, in particular, are often not in good faith. And thus, his credibility stands on shaky ground.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.samharris.org/blog/reply-to-a-christian
[2] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-moral-argument-a-short-dialectic/
[3] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ignorant-objection-to-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/
[4] Harris, Sam. “Introduction.” The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Free Press, New York, 2010, pp. 2–2.
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE
[6] https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/sam-harris-defends-silencing-the-post-on-hunter-biden/
[7] https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3BGu6lb
How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
This article will consider the differences among the modern translations.
Translation Theory
Have you ever wondered why Bible translations differ from one another? For example, some say “brothers” while others say “brothers and sisters.” Or some say “he knew her” while others say “he had sexual relations with her.” Why the differences? Two factors explain why.
The first factor is textual. Which Greek or Hebrew text is the base text for the English translation? The TR or the NA? And which textual variant most likely represents the original? Because I already dealt with textual criticism in article six of this series, I’ll simply refer you to that article.
The second factor which explains the differences among the translations is linguistic. Bible translators must ask themselves how they can best transfer the words and ideas from the original languages into English. Should they seek a translation that is more literal word-for-word? Or should they seek a translation that irons out the meaning in a more readable way? Or should they land somewhere in between?
Translations ultimately land somewhere on the spectrum between a more literal word-for-word translation (formal equivalence) and a meaning-for-meaning translation (dynamic equivalence). Formal equivalent translations will give a more literal rendering “Adam knew Eve” (ESV), while dynamic equivalent translations will give the meaning “Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve” (NLT). If you’re wondering where your favorite translation lands on the spectrum, I’ve listed some of the more popular translations below:
Linguistic Issues
Currency, Weights, and Measures
Translating currency, weights, and measures is a difficult task. Consider the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Matthew 18:24 reads:
The difficulty in translating “talents” (which is the more literal translation) is immediately obvious. The word talent means something completely different in our modern vernacular. The ESV decided to stick with the literal rendering, but at what expense? (no pun intended) Even if someone were to realize talent refers to a currency, they still have no idea how much a talent was worth.
The NIV decided that a literal rendering would not be helpful. But they also decided that giving a literal amount was impossible. Therefore, they went with “ten thousand bags of gold.” How much is ten thousand bags of gold worth? A whole lot! Though no specific amount is given.
The NLT went in an even different direction. While they are similar to the NIV in that they don’t list a specific amount, they decided to translate the currency into American dollars. This decision, however, suggests that they are thinking primarily of an American audience. Why not the British pound?
Another example is Isaiah 5:10.
You can see that both the ESV and the NIV translated the measures in a literal way. In doing so, they tell us exactly what the Hebrew text says. But who knows what a “homer of seed” or an “ephah” is? The NLT, again, attempts to give the meaning by using understandable terms such as “gallons” and “baskets.”
Euphemisms
Every culture has its own euphemisms. “That one bit the dust” or “He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed” would confuse anyone trying to learn English for the first time. If someone were to translate those phrases into another language, should they translate them word-for-word like above, or give the meaning of the phrases?
We find scores of Hebrews and Greek euphemisms in the Bible. Consider Rachel’s words to her father Laban in Genesis 31:35.
The KJV and the NASB give a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text while the NIV gives the meaning of the euphemism.
Another word, though technically not a euphemism, that Bible translators wrestle over is the word “flesh.” Consider Paul’s words in Romans 7:18.
I grew up in church, so I am familiar with the term “flesh.” That said, someone picking up a Bible for the first time might be confused by this term. In Romans 7:18, both the ESV and the CSB give the literal rendering of the Greek, while the NIV gives Paul’s meaning.
Grammar and Syntax
Every language has a unique structure. Greek and Hebrew have different structures from English. That said, a literal wooden word-for-word translation would be so unreadable and unhelpful, that even the most formal equivalent translations like the NASB smooth out the sentences into English.
One grammatical issue that Bible translators wrestle with revolves around the genitive case. The genitive is often thought of as the “possessive case” in cases such as “my dog” or “Billy’s house.” Yet, many times, the genitive does not convey possession but functions more like an adjective. The formal translations, however, still tend to translate these genitives as possessives by giving the literal rendering “of.” Speaking of God the Son, Hebrews 1:3 states:
“he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (ESV).
“upholds all things by the word of His power” (NASB).
“sustaining all things by his powerful word” (NIV).
Both the ESV and the NASB give the wooden genitive “of” reading while the NIV smooths out the meaning and shows that power is not a possessive but an adjective modifying “word.”
Gender Pronouns
The final issue we will consider deals with gender inclusion. Hebrew and Greek both used masculine pronouns to describe humans in general. The Greek word anthropos functions this way. And to an extent, we still do this today when we say things like “mankind.” That said, English translations wrestle through translating the masculine pronouns so as to not exclude the female gender. Some translations stay with the literal rendering, while others attempt to give the meaning. Consider Psalm 1:1.
“Blessed is the man” (ESV).
“Blessed is the man” (NASB).
“Blessed is the one” (NIV).
“Oh, the joys of those” (NLT).
“How happy is the one” (CSB).
The more literal reading is “man.” That said, the meaning is gender inclusive.
Different Translations
So, which Bible translation should you use? Well, it all depends on your goal. If you’re looking to give a Bible to a young child, you may consider a Bible on the dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum. If you’re wanting a Bible to read consistently throughout the year, I’d recommend multiple Bibles. The NIV and CSB are nice options as they strike a nice balance between formal and dynamic equivalencies. That said, it’s also nice to have a Bible that gives you a more literal rendering so that you can get a better idea of what the original languages say.
Personally, I consult at least three Bibles when I’m studying a text. I look at both a formal and dynamic translation, as well as one somewhere in-between.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original blog: https://bit.ly/3S36ZGY
Letter to the American Church | with Eric Metaxas
PodcastWould you have stood up against slavery in the 1860s? Or against Nazi Germany in the 1930s? What about your pastor? It seems the Church today is more interested in being politically correct than speaking out in defense of the truth. But can it really be God’s will that His children be silent at a time like this?
Best-selling author (Bonhoeffer, Luther, Amazing Grace, Miracles) and radio host Eric Metaxas joins Frank to reveal highlights of his new book, Letter to the American Church, where he summons the Church to battle and calls for pastors (and other Christians) to be courageous enough to speak up against the massive anti-Christian forces that now threaten to permanently transform American society.
In this podcast episode, Frank and Eric bring to light four major errors we make in thinking that Christians should NOT be involved in politics or other controversial issues:
They also discuss the spiral of silence, religious liberty, and the haunting similarities between today’s American Church and the German Church of the 1930s. We hope you’ll share both this podcast episode and Eric’s book with your pastor and church congregation!
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST with Frank and Eric, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and join us for some great conversation about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, or co-workers!
Get the book here: https://amzn.to/3qeeRtp
Eric’s website: https://ericmetaxas.com/
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
4 nuevos argumentos a favor de la Resurrección de Jesús
EspañolPor Brian G. Chilton
Durante casi diez años, he tenido el honor de ofrecerles razones para creer en la resurrección de Jesús. Ahora me encuentro al final de una licenciatura en estudios teológicos y apologéticos. Para algunos, la educación avanzada tiende a hacer que uno dude de su posición con el tiempo. Sin embargo, ese no ha sido el caso para mí y la resurrección de Jesús.
En los últimos años, he encontrado cinco nuevas razones de peso para creer que la resurrección de Jesús fue un acontecimiento histórico legítimo. Estos cinco argumentos pueden o no ser nuevos para el lector, pero se volvieron nuevos para mí a través de mi investigación y son más nuevos que algunos de los argumentos anteriores dados sobre la resurrección en artículos anteriores. Sin más preámbulos, considere los siguientes cinco nuevos argumentos a favor de la resurrección de Jesús.
La naturaleza inesperada de la resurrección
El primer argumento es una de las mejores pruebas de la resurrección que nunca había considerado. He aquí, que nadie en la época de Jesús esperaba que el Mesías se levantara de entre los muertos. En el Evangelio de Mateo, los líderes judíos argumentan que los discípulos robaron el cuerpo de Jesús (Mateo 28:11-15). De todas las teorías alternativas sobre la resurrección, ésta es por mucho la más convincente. Independientemente de que se sostenga que los discípulos robaron el cuerpo de Jesús, que inventaron la historia o que fingieron la muerte de Jesús, hay un aspecto que los escépticos no tienen en cuenta. Nadie en el primer siglo anticipó la inminente resurrección de Jesús. Esto es evidente en el encuentro de Jesús con Marta en la tumba de Lázaro. Recordemos que cuando Jesús le preguntó a María si creía que Lázaro se levantaría de entre los muertos, ella respondió: “Yo sé que resucitará en la resurrección, en el día final” (Jn. 11:24 LBLA). La respuesta de Marta representaba la posición típica de los fariseos y los esenios. Josefo señala que la gran mayoría de la población del Israel del siglo I era farisea.
N.T. Wright aporta dos razones por las que la resurrección fue inesperada en el siglo I. Por un lado, los creyentes que vivían en los tiempos del judaísmo del Segundo Templo preveían que la resurrección traería consigo la “restauración de Israel… 2026 la nueva vida encarnada de todo el pueblo de YHWH”. Por otro lado, nadie en la época relacionaba al Mesías con la resurrección. El concepto de que el Mesías resucitara al tercer día, aunque pudiera estar reflejado en los textos del AT hasta cierto punto, no era en absoluto esperado por los creyentes de esta época. Por lo tanto, la falta de previsión de una resurrección supone un golpe fatal para cualquier teoría que proyecte a los primeros cristianos como aquellos que planificaron tal experiencia. ¿Por qué fingir algo que no creían que fuera a suceder en primer lugar?
Múltiples fuentes independientes
Cuando se trata de cualquier acontecimiento de la historia, es importante contar con la atestación de múltiples fuentes. Cuantos más ojos se tengan sobre un acontecimiento, más precisa será la verdad que se pueda preservar. Cuando se trata de la resurrección, tenemos múltiples fuentes que apuntan a que la resurrección de Jesús es un hecho histórico. Primero, tenemos las cuatro fuentes independientes que se encuentran en los Evangelios. Mateo, Marcos, Lucas y Juan proporcionan relatos únicos de las apariciones de Jesús en la resurrección. Mateo relata el encuentro de Jesús con los discípulos en Galilea después de la resurrección. Marcos informa sobre las mujeres en la tumba y su misterioso encuentro con los ángeles en la tumba. Lucas proporciona múltiples relatos que no se conservan en los otros Evangelios, incluido el encuentro de los dos discípulos con Jesús en el camino de Emaús (Lc. 24:13-35). Juan ofrece múltiples relatos que no se incluyen en los otros Evangelios, como el encuentro de Tomás con Jesús (Jn. 20:24-29), el encuentro de Jesús con los discípulos en el Mar de Galilea, la reincorporación de Pedro por Jesús (Jn. 21:15-19) y la pregunta de Pedro a Jesús sobre el ministerio de Juan (Jn. 21:20-23).
Además de los Evangelios, una quinta fuente se encuentra en el credo primitivo de 1 Corintios 15:3-9. El credo primitivo proporciona información adicional sobre las apariciones de Jesús en la resurrección. Habla del encuentro de Pedro con Jesús resucitado (1 Cor. 15:5), del encuentro entre Jesús y Santiago (1 Cor. 15:7) y de su aparición ante más de 500 personas (1 Cor. 15:6). Una sexta fuente se encuentra en los resúmenes de los sermones de Pedro en el libro de los Hechos (Hechos 2:14-41 y 3:12-26). Una séptima fuente se encuentra en el resumen del sermón de Esteban (especialmente en Hechos 7:52 y 7:59-60). Por último, una octava fuente se encuentra en los resúmenes de los sermones de Pablo. En el primer resumen del sermón de Pablo, éste habla incluso de la tumba vacía de Jesús (Hechos 13:29). Max Wilcox ha encontrado de forma convincente numerosos semitismos en los resúmenes de los sermones de Hechos 1-15 que en gran medida no se encuentran en el resto del libro. Por lo que los sermones de estos capítulos proceden de resúmenes anteriores que son anteriores a la composición del libro de los Hechos. Dado que una buena estimación de la datación de los Hechos es de mediados de los años 60, se puede decir que estos resúmenes son muy anteriores. El hecho de que hablen de la resurrección de Jesús proporciona una razón más para adoptarla como un evento genuino de la historia.
Testimonio extremadamente temprano
El estudio de los credos tempranos del NT está cobrando fuerza. Aunque pueda afirmar lo contrario, el erudito del NT y autoproclamado ateo-agnóstico Bart Ehrman escribió que Pablo recibió los credos (por ejemplo, 1 Cor. 15:3-9) mientras estaba en Jerusalén en el año 35 o 36 d.C. Continúa diciendo que “las tradiciones que [Pablo] heredó, por supuesto, eran más antiguas que eso y por lo tanto deben datar de un par de años más o menos después de la muerte de Jesús”. Dado que los primeros credos afirman sin reservas la resurrección corporal literal de Jesús, esto proporciona una evidencia firme de que los primeros discípulos creían que Jesús había resucitado de entre los muertos. El resumen del sermón de Pablo también afirmaba la creencia de que la tumba de Jesús estaba vacía, como se señaló anteriormente. En el caso de muchos, si no la mayoría, de los primeros credos, estamos hablando de que circularon entre unos meses y unos años después de la crucifixión de Jesús. Los credos que se encuentran en las epístolas paulinas surgieron de la información que Pablo obtuvo de su interacción con la Iglesia de Jerusalén un par de años después de su conversión (Gal. 1:18). Pasó dos semanas con Pedro y Santiago aprendiendo sobre las enseñanzas y doctrinas de Cristo. Como señala C. H. Dodd, “podemos suponer que no se pasaron todo el tiempo hablando del clima”. Así pues, la proclamación de que Jesús había resucitado de entre los muertos llegó muy pronto desde el lugar donde Jesús había sido crucificado. Los detalles de los resúmenes de los primeros sermones de los Hechos y los credos de las epístolas de Pablo constituyen un argumento completo y convincente de la predicación temprana de la resurrección. Cuando se combina con el primer argumento, es difícil encontrar otra explicación fuera del hecho de que Jesús resucitó literalmente de entre los muertos.
La única cristología escatológica primitiva
Por último, se ha observado que la cristología más antigua es la más elevada cristología. Además, las primeras tradiciones de Jesús respaldan la idea de que Jesús habló de una figura escatológica que introduciría el reino de Dios. Esta figura escatológica se conoce como el Hijo del Hombre. Podría decirse que el Hijo del Hombre constituye el núcleo cristológico de Q – un Evangelio teórico que precede a los Evangelios canónicos. Parte de esta tradición primitiva incluye el comentario de Jesús de que, al igual que “Jonás estuvo en el vientre del gran pez tres días y tres noches, el Hijo del Hombre estará en el corazón de la tierra tres días y tres noches” (Mateo 12:40). La figura del Hijo del Hombre se encuentra casi exclusivamente en las enseñanzas de Jesús. Por lo tanto, esta fue una enseñanza única de Jesús. La figura del Hijo del Hombre no sólo se relaciona con que Jesús es el regente de Dios que trae el reino de Dios a la tierra, sino que también habla de su glorificación, que se relaciona con su resurrección. Por lo tanto, la predicación de Jesús sobre la resurrección fue recordada y preservada por los primeros discípulos debido al cumplimiento literal de Jesús de esta promesa única e inesperada.
Conclusión
Algunos de estos argumentos pueden ser nuevos para usted y otros no. Algunos de estos aspectos se desarrollarán más en mi disertación pendiente. No obstante, la naturaleza única e inesperada de la resurrección, la predicación temprana de la resurrección, las múltiples fuentes y la identificación escatológica temprana de Jesús con la resurrección hablan con fuerza de la probabilidad de que Jesús resucitó literalmente de entre los muertos el primer domingo de Pascua. Mi esperanza es que estos argumentos a favor de la resurrección de Jesús, además de los argumentos clásicos, fortalezcan su fe y le ofrezcan la esperanza de que hay una vida más allá de esta mera existencia mortal.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el anfitrión de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidades en Teología de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Actualmente, Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3wRX4fh
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
How Mainstream Media Gaslights Christians (and Everyone Else Who Disagrees with Them)
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politicsby Natasha Crain
I had a revelation last week that, in retrospect, was many years overdue. So overdue that it borders on embarrassing to admit this was a revelation in 2022. Here it is:
Mainstream media doesn’t try to be objective.
Now, before you laugh too hard, let me make a clear distinction: I’ve long known mainstream media is not objective. But I had strangely held onto the assumption that they thought they were being objective and just woefully lacked enough self-awareness to see how crazily biased they were.
What I realized last week is that of course they know how biased they are…whether they’ve ever stopped to acknowledge the changed nature of so-called “news” or not. We’ve simply drifted over time into a land where the unstated new normal is that virtually all news is essentially op-ed.
Perhaps the reason I naively held onto the idea that news is inherently supposed to be objective is that I started out as a broadcast journalism major in college. Way back in the ancient days of 1994, I was taking classes that presupposed every good journalist sought to be objective. Our news story homework assignments would come back to us with the finest of edits, designed to carefully root out any trace of bias. After all, if we ever wanted a shot at working for places as heralded as CNN was at the time, we had to learn how to be…unbiased.
What a crazy thought today.
Not only is mainstream media not trying to be objective, but they’re also openly advocating for specific viewpoints. And not only are they openly advocating for specific viewpoints, but they’re also strategically manipulating public thought.
Psychological manipulation over time in the search for control over people’s thinking is called gaslighting. It’s the process of making someone believe they’re crazy and question their entire view of reality.
Maybe that sounds dramatic, but I don’t think it is. There is a coordinated effort amongst mainstream media sources to achieve a specific type of public influence today—an influence directed toward achieving a uniformity of thought that’s nearly always at odds with a Christian worldview.
While Christians realize this to varying degrees, I don’t believe we’re collectively thinking enough through the implications of just how much this media sea change has affected, is affecting, and will affect both our own worldview and the worldview of those around us.
Consider the significance of the following five implicit messages that mainstream media constantly trumpets in a variety of ways.
1. “Pretty much everyone agrees with how to view issues of cultural importance. If you’re one of the ones who disagree, you’re on the extreme fringe of society. That should tell you something about the accuracy and reasonableness of your views.”
In the early 1980s, there were fifty independent companies that owned the majority of media in the US. But by 2011, just six conglomerates controlled 90 percent of media. The fact that a handful of companies control nearly all media outlets makes it possible to present a unified viewpoint on any issue. It looks to media consumers as though the “authoritative” news voices around them are all aligned with certain viewpoints, but it’s really all coming from the same handful of companies.
Make no mistake: The appearance of unified thought coming from sources people perceive to be representative of culture at large is very powerful—especially when you’re in a worldview minority. As I discuss at length in Faithfully Different, it’s estimated that only 6 percent of Americans have a biblical worldview (accepting core teachings of the Bible). Yes, 65 percent of Americans identify themselves with the label “Christian,” but the vast majority of self-identified Christians hold beliefs in conflict with basic biblical teachings about things such as the existence of objective morality, the reality of heaven and hell, the nature of God, and much more.
If you’re in the 6 percent whose worldview is based on what the Bible teaches, you’re going to feel the pressure of seeing that nearly everyone in culture—including those who identify as a Christian—thinks differently. And media wants to capitalize on that aspect of our humanity that makes us question our beliefs just because they differ from the norm. But remember: There’s no such thing as democracy when it comes to what’s true about reality; numbers will never determine truth.
2. “Here’s the language that’s acceptable to use if you’re going to be an acceptable member of society.”
Beyond the uniformity of viewpoint achievable due to the structure of media ownership, there’s uniformity even at the detailed level of language. That’s because there’s a language guide that has long functioned as the default style manual for mainstream news organizations. It’s called the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook.
The AP Stylebook goes far beyond what words everyone should capitalize in a headline or when to hyphenate; they give viewpoint guidance as well. They recently issued, for example, a guide for coverage on transgender issues.
Ironically, the guide begins, “Journalists on all beats must be able to write about and interview transgender people using accurate, sensitive, unbiased language.” But what follows is anything but unbiased. As a small sampling of the guide, media is told to:
And that’s just a small fraction of the content. It’s very clear that journalistic expectations now include using language in a way that accepts and promotes the mainstream secular narrative. The more the public hears carefully curated phrasing designed to subconsciously transform how we view issues, the more those who refuse to use such language will be viewed with resentment. Once again, the idea is that this is where society at large is, and if you’re not there with your words, there’s something wrong with you.
(If you’ve marveled at how mainstream media can euphemistically refer to the intentional killing of preborn babies as “abortion care,” this is the same strategy at work. Transform the language, and you’ll transform how people think.)
3. “These are the subjects that are most important to know about and discuss.”
Every day, thousands and thousands of editorial decisions are made as to what makes the news. In other words, before we even get to the bias in how stories are told, we have the bias of what subjects are even selected to tell.
One study, for example, showed that the major broadcast networks gave three times more airtime to the pro-choice Women’s March than to the pro-life March for Life, despite comparable participant numbers and location. If you had been watching these networks, it would have been easy to assume that the pro-choice Women’s March was far more culturally significant, even if that wasn’t necessarily the case.
I regularly visit the Facebook news tab to track this phenomenon and see what they’re pushing users to consider important. From the looks of it, they really want me to be aware when a celebrity changes pronouns (Demi Lovato this week), when new state abortion restrictions have (allegedly) jeopardized a woman’s health, and that Christian nationalism is a terrifying threat.
Story selection strongly shapes our view of what the “world” is talking about, and that can significantly influence what we believe is most important if we’re not careful. But there are plenty of issues important for Christians that you’ll rarely see discussed in mainstream media. Wins for religious freedom, for example, will likely not see the light of day, or if they do, they’ll be covered negatively. Christians need to take it upon ourselves to stay informed about issues mainstream media won’t discuss.
(For religious freedom issues in particular, I highly recommend following the Alliance Defending Freedom.)
4. “These are the things you need to be very afraid of…and the solutions that will make you safe again.”
Whether it’s Covid, monkeypox, climate change, the loss of supposed “abortion rights,” or the idea that the world is one step from nuclear annihilation, continually perpetuating fear drives ratings and clicks. Frankly, that’s just business. It’s how they make money. But fear is also undoubtedly used strategically to push people to favor desired solutions.
This is a tactic that works with just about anyone—Christian or not—because it speaks to our human nature. We just have to be self-aware enough to recognize it.
When people are scared for themselves, they’re more likely to hand over freedoms to the government to ensure some measure of safety. But the bigger the government control in the name of safety for all, the lesser the tolerance and rights for any who won’t fall in line.
And when people are scared for others, they’re more likely to accept positions that might otherwise be at odds with their own moral knowledge. I’ve read countless comments from Christians, for example, who are afraid to take a stand against so-called gender affirmation surgeries for teens because they’ve been told teens will commit suicide if they aren’t affirmed in a chosen gender. Media sees what fear can drive and continually perpetuates those statistics to sway views. (Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters is a must-read on this subject.)
Similarly, many Christians claim to be pro-life personally but don’t support banning abortion because media has made them fear that abortion bans will be responsible for women dying from situations like ectopic pregnancies (this is completely false.)
When people are scared, whether for themselves or others, it gives media a reason to take the presumed moral high ground and demonize anyone who doesn’t support safety. That’s effective because now you’re not someone who simply disagrees—you’re someone who is putting others in either mental or physical jeopardy. Christians on the receiving end of that characterization need to be deeply convicted of the biblical justification for their positions in order to not feel the psychological weight of thinking their views actually hurt others.
(And for the record, I’m not saying that there aren’t things to be legitimately concerned about. I’m specifically talking about how the media elevates appropriate levels of concern to a point where they can leverage crisis-level fear to their benefit and agenda.)
5. “It’s not just us saying these things…look at all these Christian leaders who agree. Trust them even if you don’t trust us.”
Someone not following the news closely might think that Christians are actually well represented in the media. After all, mainstream outlets somewhat regularly feature interviews with or articles about various Christian leaders. CNN, for example, recently featured a lengthy interview with high profile pastor Andy Stanley titled “The evangelical church faces a ‘state of emergency’ over the pandemic and politics, Andy Stanley says.”
But of course CNN was pleased to publish an interview with a well-known pastor criticizing the evangelical church and scolding Christians for taking sides in politics. That’s what they’d like to do themselves, but it’s more effective to have one of our own say it in the hope we’ll question any differing understanding we may have. (The interview was based on Stanley’s new best-selling book, Not In It To Win It: Why Choosing Sides Sidelines the Church, which I discussed the problems with in my last podcast— “Why Christians Must Care about Politics.”)
Similarly, The Washington Post is happy this week to feature the headline, “Clerics sue over Florida abortion law, saying it violates religious freedom.” Of course, they’re going for the shock value of suggesting religious leaders are for abortion as much as anyone else and that it’s actually a matter of religious freedom.
Any Christian writer/speaker/pastor whom mainstream media is happy to feature should take deep stock of why they’re receiving an invitation to the party. It’s not because media wants to genuinely share a Christian view that differs from the norm. It’s almost certainly because your view doesn’t differ from the norm that they want to promote your voice as an example to all those “other” Christians. And if your view doesn’t differ from the norm, it’s probably a good time to consider if the media has already done a really good job of convincing you to think like them.
The other day, my son and I drove by a used bookstore in town, and he noted the sign posted in the front: “Browse books and exchange ideas.” He jokingly said, “That might be the last place for the free sharing of ideas in America.” We laughed at the thought that the final outpost for the welcome exchange of differing views might be this tiny bookstore in our town. But the way mainstream media functions today, it’s not far from the truth that the open exchange of ideas will have to happen in places people very intentionally seek out.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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://bit.ly/3TIdZuj
Has the Big Bang Been Disproven? | with Stephen C. Meyer
PodcastDo recent scientific discoveries make belief in God unnecessary or implausible? A recent survey, cited by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, shows that recent scientific theories about the alleged “unguided” evolution of life have led more people to reject belief in God than any other common objection, such as suffering, disease, or death. But who are the people claiming these “perceived messages of science,” and are they really telling us what the scientific evidence actually shows?
Dr. Meyer joins Frank to discuss his recent article that was (surprisingly!) published in Newsweek magazine and responds to atheist objections to the claim that the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century actually point to an intelligent creator.
Some of the questions they address include:
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST with Frank and Dr. Meyer, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and join us for some great conversation about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, or co-workers!
Dr. Meyer’s article: https://bit.ly/3Azes9G
Dr. Meyer’s book (Return of God Hypothesis): https://amzn.to/3wJJXwo
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
La necesidad de la apologética en la iglesia local
EspañolBy Maggie Hendrick
Apologetics, when done gently and respectfully (1 Peter 3:15), is beneficial in evangelism, as we see the Holy Spirit using it over and over again in Scripture through Paul’s “reasoning” and “persuasion” to draw souls to the Lord. However, in this article, I will show how apologetics in the local church has other benefits: equipping the saints and preventing apostasy. Of course, our entire Christian walk should be dedicated to evangelism; that is a fact.
But, in order not to sound too internally focused, I want to show that apologetics has benefits for believers themselves and why the local church is the best source for implementing them.
Apologetics is useful in: Making disciples
The Great Commission in Matthew 28 commands believers to make disciples, not converts. This is an important distinction for apologetics, as it has many benefits and goals. We know that apologetics can be used in evangelism to lead to conversion, as Paul did in Acts, but it doesn’t stop there. The church needs to motivate love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), equip the saints for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:12), help them keep their faith firm to the end (Hebrews 3:14), and encourage them to love God with their mind (Matthew 22:37). Apologetics can be used in all of these—not limited to a classroom or specialized ministry, but throughout the local church.
The local church is essential to equipping believers. But what should we be equipped with? Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the FULL armor of God so that we can withstand the wiles of the devil. Apologetics helps strengthen our faith, “that is able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one” and helps us “stand firm” with the “belt of truth.” Often local churches focus on “the breastplate of righteousness” and the “helmet of salvation,” but we need the full armor of God.
The church is founded on the Word of God, and must compare everything to it. Apologetics is another aid to knowing our Creator through the study of His creation, as well as helping us to love Him with our minds. Apologetics is not a substitute for Bible study or preaching, but is a useful tool used simultaneously to produce richer study and preaching. Therefore, it is not only helpful in evangelism as Paul used it, but also through making stronger and wiser disciples with a faith built on a solid foundation.
Evangelization+
Apologetics is not only used at the time of evangelism, but also before it. This is a huge benefit of incorporating apologetics into the church. Fear paralyzes congregants more than pastors want to admit. Of course, no matter how much we know, we can still feel nervous before sharing the gospel. However, the confidence that comes from being able to defend our faith, through apologetics, alleviates those fears and can lead to more conversations and encounters with unbelievers about the gospel. I experienced this myself when I was a 16-year-old girl heading to Utah to share my faith with Mormons. I knew very little and never wanted to be the one to initiate or speak in conversations. The more I studied, the more confident and able I was to share and defend my faith grew. This made me WANT to initiate conversations and continue sharing the gospel even when I got home. Having a congregation that can share the gospel more effectively and clearly, while also increasing the number of times they actually share it, should be an encouragement to pastors to embrace apologetics.
If the focus of apologetics in a local church is geared toward benefiting believers (not just reaching unbelievers) the church will have stronger congregants who will be better able to spur one another on to love and good works. This is because apologetics equips the saints to live out the Christian worldview outside the walls of the church…which includes evangelism! It is not a means for believers to quarrel with one another over trivial matters, but is used to fine-tune one another to better resist false ideologies and the evils of the world.
Preventing apostasy
“Now he who received seed on rocky places is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. Yet he has no deep root in himself, but is temporary. And when affliction or persecution comes because of the word, he immediately stumbles and falls.” Matthew 13:20-21
Another important aspect of a local church is helping the saints persevere and hold fast their faith to the end. Apologetics is a helpful tool in preventing apostasy. I have experienced this benefit of apologetics personally. If I had not attended a youth group so committed to equipping us before college, I would have been eaten alive there. Ultimately, being a Christian at a secular college is HARD. Our sinful hearts sometimes don’t “feel like” living out the Christian faith or even “want” to do so. But I felt like Peter, when Jesus asked him if he wanted to go too. Simon Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69) No matter how I felt each day, the gospel is true, and my faith is based on truth and not feelings.
A local church may think that apologetics is not necessary since it is growing and its members are evangelizing. I would caution against that belief because, just as apologetics helps equip us to share the Good News, it also protects us. Even though it may seem like everyone has a strong faith and is not struggling with doubt, we know that many have and will leave the faith because they do not feel they have a good reason to believe it is true.
If we don’t give believers good reasons for their faith, it will be much easier for the world to shake that faith when life gets tough. Speaking of apologetics as a training avenue, William Lane Craig says, “Unfortunately, our churches have dropped the ball in this area. It is insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and engaging devotional thoughts. We need to train our children for war.” [1] The world is at war with us. That’s why we need the whole armor of God.
Apologetics helps us formulate sufficient answers to the world’s tough questions. At some point (if not already), we will be faced with tough questions. If our faith resembles blind faith, or is built on feelings, it can be more easily shaken. Therefore, the local church must cultivate strong faith in its congregants so that “we are no longer children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human craftiness, by deceitful schemes.” ( Ephesians 4:14)
How can pastors incorporate apologetics?
Everyone has questions. Only those who know everything don’t have questions, and that of course, is not any of us. Even pastors and church leaders have questions…and questions are a good thing! The local church should encourage their congregation to ask questions so they can join them in finding quality answers. Pastors should share the questions they themselves have had, how they have found the answers (within the church body and not the world), and even invite their congregants to ask questions to emphasize the benefits of faithfully asking and seeking the truth. This type of culture within a church will lead to loving God with their minds, no longer cowering in doubt. After all, we know that JESUS IS THE TRUTH and therefore we know that we have true and genuine answers to give. There is no need to be afraid of questions when the truth is on our side.
Apologetics can be implemented in all teaching ministries of a local church. Of course, you can do specific series on these topics or organize apologetics events, but apologetics can be brought to all areas without leaving aside expository preaching. Find time in all teaching moments in the church to introduce some apologetics. Even if it is not overt apologetics, it is about creating a culture in which members can grow in their knowledge of the Lord, while receiving answers to their questions or doubts within the walls of the church.
If not for you, do it for them
As I have discussed many benefits of apologetics in a local church and practical ways to implement it, I must emphasize that apologetics must be taught early. Apologetics is not just for adults and should not be limited to the main pulpit. It should not even be limited to college or high school students. Apologetics begins when the children’s questions begin. As a mother of four young children, I can attest to how early it begins.
We should not answer any of our children’s questions with “because the Bible says so” for the same reason we reject our own parents’ “reason” of “because I said so.” These kinds of explanations didn’t satisfy us then, and they certainly won’t satisfy our children, ESPECIALLY if the question concerns big life issues and not just why they should make their bed. John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle write:
“Challenges that undermine the authority of God’s Word cannot go unanswered. And we cannot simply claim that the Bible is God’s authoritative book and expect children to simply believe us. Young people must understand the nature of biblical authority. They must have good reasons to trust the Bible as God’s Word.” [2]
We have better answers than “because the Bible says so,” so let’s give them!
Another important reason to start young is that we must begin before we feel the urgent need to do so. As J. Warner Wallace writes, “According to statistics, young Christians decide to leave the church long before they tell anyone, and usually before they leave their parents’ home… That’s why it’s so important that we start early, even before your children verbalize their questions.” [3] Many times, parents jump into apologetics when it’s too late. Even though your children may ask you questions, if you don’t give them sufficient answers, they won’t stop asking—they’ll stop asking YOU. We must lead them to the truth in a satisfactory and complete way, or we’ll find them looking elsewhere for answers.
Conclusion
Apologetics is needed in the local church, in every ministry, and for every age. Even if a believer doesn’t personally believe they need apologetics or good reasons for their own faith, why take the risk and not protect themselves from the apostasy the Bible regularly warns against? And even if they don’t ultimately need apologetics for themselves, someone they love does. And to be a wise “disciple,” we must have good answers to give or risk having them turn to the world for answers.
We need apologetics in the local church to equip us to better know and love God with our minds, train and encourage us to evangelize, prepare us to better disciple young believers, and protect ourselves (and others) from the deceptive ideologies of this world and from falling into apostasy. The church is responsible for equipping its congregation, and therefore, it must implement apologetics regularly.
Now let’s fasten our belts of truth and get to work!
Footnotes:
[1] William Lane Craig. “Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?: Reasonable Faith.” Who Needs It? Reasonable Faith, www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/apologetics/christian-apologetics-who-needs-it/.
[2] John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle. A Practical Guide to Culture. David C. Cook, 2020. 309.
[3] Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace. So the Next Generation Will Know. David C Cook, 2019. 41.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Maggie is Curtis’ wife, a stay-at-home wife. She is the mother of their sons Troy (in heaven), Ty, Jay, Palin, and Boyd. She received her BA in Religious Studies from Chapman University and her MA in Christian Apologetics and Evangelism from Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. She is currently the coordinator of the Immersive Bible Experience at Maven where she has the joy of planning trips for Christian youth to share their faith with Mormons in Utah. In addition to her love for Christian youth and Mormon ministry, she is a pro-life and adoption advocate. She has a deep love for babies and has been nicknamed “the baby whisperer.” You’ll likely find her curled up on the couch with one of her sons while eating bacon and drinking a glass of chocolate milk (Nesquik, of course).
Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3kwocJS
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Monica Pirateque
Are We All Born Children of God?
Theology and Christian Apologeticsby Melissa Dougherty
Many believe that all humans are born children of God. Is this true? I want to examine the Bible’s words about this beautiful theological truth.
Spoiler alert- It’s true. According to the Bible, we’re not born children of God. The belief that we’re all children of God is never taught in the Bible and has caused a lot of bad theology. Scripture teaches that though we are all created by God, we become children of God through spiritual adoption. However, we are all born in the image of God. All humans have worth, are creations of God, and He loves us. It’s because He loves us that He became His own creation to save us and redeem us. This is precisely why Jesus had to come in the first place. If we’re all already children of God, Jesus didn’t have to die to redeem or adopt us. What is He redeeming or adopting us from? This is the verbiage that the Bible regularly uses when speaking about Jesus’ death: He “redeemed” us, we were “slaves” to sin, and we are “adopted” into His family.
I want to elaborate on this point. There’s an abundance of Scriptures about the new birth, being adopted into God’s family, being a New Creation in Christ that all are explicitly clear that what we once were — slaves to sin which we are no longer as a child of God. To be born again means to be spiritually remade, from being a child of wrath to being adopted as a child of God:
To be born of God means to be spiritually reborn.
We become God’s children when we are saved because we are adopted into God’s family through our relationship with Jesus Christ. Galatians 4 also talks about this. In chapter 3, Paul had just explained we’re all sons of God through faith in Jesus. It’s our faith in Jesus that makes us His child. If we belong to Christ, then we’re Abrahams’s seed and, as children, are heirs. This is important because Paul emphasizes that only an heir, a son, can receive the inheritance.
He compares this to someone who’s a slave to the world vs. being a child of God.
There are two categories.
At the beginning of chapter 4, he says this:
This is amazing. God’s promise to Abraham is our inheritance. We were slaves to the “elementary principles” of the world. In vs. 5, Paul says that Jesus bought our freedom, as we were slaves to the law and the world! He adopts us.
This is explained further in John chapter 3, where Jesus says he doesn’t come to condemn the world but to save the world, but people loved the darkness instead of the light. Now everyone is familiar with John 3:16, so let’s start there:
Let’s keep reading, though, because everyone likes to just stop there.
This is important: people don’t understand that according to this, the world is already condemned. People typically have it backward. They believe God condemns us, but that’s not what John 3 says. Sin is what condemns us. Since we are born into condemnation, we must be saved from that.
If we’re adopted into God’s family through Jesus, you have to wonder who or what we’re adopted from if God isn’t already our Father. How would we be adopted into God’s family if we’re already a part of it? To whom does the world belong? Who’s our father?
In John 8 and 1 John, the Bible describes our father as the devil. This is why we must be “born again” because we’re born into condemnation as children of the devil.
We have the wrong Dad!
Galatians 3:22-25 says:
First John 3:10 explains this even more that there’s a dualistic view of this. If we’re not children of God, then we’re by default children of the devil:
Jesus calls the Pharisees children of the devil in John 8. Here the Pharisees are in a tongue-lashing match with Jesus, and they say that they are heirs of Abraham. Jesus puts them in their place when it comes to this claim:
Just like we’re not literally “born” again, which is what Nicodemus was asking, we’re also not literally “born” as the children of the devil. It’s spiritual slavery and spiritual rebirth. If you’re a child of God, it means you’ve experienced the spiritual new birth, are born again, and are saved.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.