Tag Archive for: Christianity

What Does it Mean to be Unequally Yoked?

, ,

Many people see “unequally yoked” in a Bible verse or hear it in conversation and seem to have one of two thoughts come into their mind: (1) Make sure I’m equally yoked with my spouse, or (2) Why does Paul care about anyone’s egg yolks, much less them being equal?

As important as getting good protein matters, this verse definitely doesn’t have anything to do with poultry. And some are surprised to learn that it’s not limited to marriage. I want to help break this down more.

What is a Yoke Anyways?

A yoke is a wooden beam that connects two large animals, like oxen, and helps them work equally and together. They carry the burden of work together. It would be attached to a plow or cart, and they’d pull it simultaneously as partners. Basically, they’re teamed up together. So with that in mind, let’s read the scripture:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with the devil? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
2 Corinthians 6: 14-18 (ESV)

With the description of being “yoked” together, picture the image of the oxen yoked together, and imagine that they’re uneven, that one ox is yoked improperly, and it’s off balance. This causes the cart to go uneven, and the oxen cannot work together. This causes them to go around in circles or stop altogether. I also envision a three-legged race where people have their legs tied together, and they have to work together to get to the finish line, but one person either refuses to move, or they were tied incorrectly, and they can’t work together because of it. One person is just dragging the other like a bag of rocks, trying to progress but can’t.

What is the Context?

As with any passage of Scripture, it’s helpful to know who’s writing, why he’s writing, and whom he’s writing to. Paul is writing this letter to the Corinthian church to defend his authority and denounce people who were twisting truth. There always seemed to be moral issues within the church, and in both letters to the Corinthians, Paul addresses this. In chapter 6, Paul just got done addressing the Corinthian’s belief that Paul “restricts” them.

Paul loved the Corinthians, and he wanted them to know that. In chapter 6 verses 11-13, He says that they feel hurt by him and restricted, but he’s saying, no, I’m not restricting you. He’s saying that they’re restricting themselves, ironically, through their affection to the world and pride within themselves.

This is so familiar, isn’t it? We see this today, too, where people think it’s “unloving” or “judgmental” to even talk about moral restrictions.

With that as a backdrop to the verses about being unequally yoked, we can better understand why Paul would use that as an example. Paul is speaking to the overly broad affections of the Corinthian Christians. They had joined themselves —yoked themselves— to unbelievers, preventing their reconciliation with Paul. Paul is saying not to yoke together in this way because it causes damage to their relationship with God and other believers. The idea of “do not be unequally yoked together” is based on Deuteronomy 22:9, which prohibits yoking together two different animals. It’s talking about joining two things that should not be joined. Like ketchup on ice cream. Or using turpenoid with acrylic paint.

Or like pineapple on pizza. (Fight me.)

Many people use this passage when talking about marrying an unbeliever, which is true, but Paul is talking about much more than just that. It really applies to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs. In other words, it’s “conforming to the world,” as it says in Romans 12:2.

“Unequally yoked” refers to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs.

On the other side, some people use this verse to say we should never even be around or have anything to do with people with different beliefs than we do, and that’s just demonstrably false. Jesus didn’t even do this. What Paul is not saying is that we should never associate with unbelievers. The idea is to be in the world but not of the world. We’re not meant to be theological hermits in our religious echo chambers, only associating with people that agree with us. This isn’t biblical and doesn’t follow the biblical command to make disciples in Matthew 28 or to know what we believe and why we believe it, as it says in 1 Peter 3:15. We hide our light under a bush, and Jesus says not to do that, we need to let it shine. This doesn’t mean that if we have a weak conscience or struggle with being impressionable or people pleasers, we need to put ourselves in spiritually dangerous positions. We each need to discern our sensitivities and be wise about them. But that doesn’t mean we need to treat unbelievers with contempt or develop a superiority complex within ourselves by using this verse as an excuse to never associate with people of a different viewpoint or beat Christians over the head if they’re kind or friendly with unbelievers.

That’s simply unbiblical and frankly pretty unhealthy, in my opinion.

I mean, here we are speaking about yokes… some people place an impossible yoke on others, placing a burden that Jesus came to relieve. They use this passage in an extreme way, as a weapon, almost against their fellow brethren. There is no pleasing them. They completely miss the point of the passage.

But isn’t it more loving to share their yoke?

The difference here has a lot to do with boundaries. The Corinthian Christians thought, much like people do today, that it’s “loving” to accept people’s sin along with righteousness, darkness along with light, the devil along with Christ. When Paul says not to be unequally yoked, I’d like to think of it as the first-century version of the coexist or tolerance sticker. Don’t be a coexist sticker. You can’t just add the love of God without renouncing evil.

The best example of the context of what Paul is saying here is to look at the behavior of the Corinthians and see that he’s saying that they thought like worldly people, not like godly people. Because of their unhealthy ungodly associations, it caused them to stumble and sin. Paul is correcting this and trying to reconcile with them.

To be yoked together with someone means that you are in a compromising partnership with them, and you’re compromising your beliefs to do it. It’s a type of syncretism. This is mixing the Christian message with the more culturally accepted beliefs around you and making a hybrid sort of Christianity that seems to work for everyone. But really, it’s for the purpose of not offending those around you. Compare this with what’s called contextualization, which is what we want to do when sharing the gospel in a culturally appropriate way with unbelievers while not sacrificing the truth of the gospel to appease the people and culture.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Have you Thought About Marriage today by Bob Perry Blog

LifeGivers Apologetics: Women Designed and Equipped to Share Reasons for the Hope Within (Book/ Study Guide – Teacher’s Version and Student’s Version) by Tricia Scribner

Woman to Woman: Preparing Yourself to Mentor (Book) by Edna Ellison & Tricia Scribner

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 also has a bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

/by

A Wolf in the Sheep Pen

, ,

By Bob Perry

The church service at our suburban Cincinnati non-denominational church had barely ended when I started receiving text messages from friends. All of them shared some version of the same question my wife and I were asking each other about the sermon we had just heard from a visiting preacher: “What in the world was that?!” The simple answer was that we had unknowingly let a wolf in the sheep pen.

The sermon was delivered by a man who on the surface was someone we could trust. He was a professor from a reputable Christian university, with master’s degrees in both Divinity and New Testament Studies and a Ph.D. in Philosophy/New Testament Exegesis. He had preached at our church on several occasions over the years. His sermons had never been notably good or bad. But this Sunday morning was different. He had more than a message to deliver.

He had an agenda.

Scripture Twisting

The visiting preacher’s message was based on Ephesians 2:11-22, a text that starts with a “therefore” connecting it to the previous passage. That means it’s sandwiched between Paul’s explanation of Christ’s person and mission at the beginning of Chapter 2, and his clarification in Chapter 3 that the Gospel is also meant for the Gentiles.

The unmistakable point of this passage is that the Law, which had excluded non-Jews, had been superseded by the grace we receive through Christ’s sacrifice. It’s about Spirit-vs-Law, grace-vs-works. It’s a call to unity wherein Paul was exhorting his readers to recognize that the Gentiles were no longer “foreigners and aliens” but are fellow members of God’s household. He was clarifying a theological point about the unifying nature of salvation and the shared solution to our human rebellion and hostility toward God.

Changing the Subject

Our guest preacher acknowledged all this in passing. But four minutes into his message, things took an insidious turn. His focus subtly shifted from the solution for man’s hostility toward God to the reality of human beings’ hostility toward one another. Suddenly, we were hearing about diversity, inclusion, “minority status,” and the human inclination for conflict.

He had changed the subject. His goal had not been to exegete the passage in question; it had been to deliver a cultural message.

Once the subtle change of subject morphed into the central point, we were treated to a lecture about a lack of diversity in the demographics of typical suburban midwestern community churches like ours. We were warned about Evangelical Christianity’s bent toward a toxic “Christian Nationalism.” These topics were lead-ins to the message he really wanted to deliver. That came when he began reading us letters he had received from his diverse list of friends in response to a query he had offered them: “What do you want white American Christians to understand about Christians like you?

The specter of division is built right into his question. And it didn’t take long for it to bear fruit.

Critiquing People They’ve Never Met

Though he later denied knowing much about Critical Race Theory (CRT) or having any intention of talking about it, the letters he read could have formed a bullet point summary of its tenets. They included the declaration that “it’s not enough for white Christians to be ‘”non-racist,” we need them to be ‘anti-racist,”’ and the demand that “we need white brothers and sisters to not only acknowledge their own racist tendencies, but to also confront and challenge the racism of family, friends, co-workers, and church folk.” We were called on to “reimagine and reinvent systems that make it more difficult for African Americans to realize the American dream.” And we were “comforted” in learning that a woman who had never met a single person in our congregation had assured us, “I do not hate you. I just pray that one day I will be able to wholeheartedly forgive you.”

It isn’t hard to imagine the damage this thirty-minute cultural hand grenade caused when it detonated inside our church. So, it pays to stop at this point and reflect on the claims and assumptions built into these serious accusations and ask how they are in any way related to the text in Ephesians 2:11-22.

They aren’t. And that’s the problem.

Eisegesis -vs- Exegesis

Our visiting preacher wasn’t exegeting the meaning of the text or drawing an application from (ex in Greek) it. He was imposing his own predetermined view into (eis in Greek) the passage. That’s called eisegesis. It’s the opposite of exegesis.

No doubt, racism is a blight on society. We all need to talk about it. But making generalized assumptions about the actions and attitudes of entire groups of people we don’t know, and segregating “white Christians” from “Christians of color,” are not good alternatives for seeing every human as being made in the image of God.

Racism was his topic of choice that day. Unfortunately, the method he used to address it is a microcosm of a trend that is metastasizing inside the church. Our congregation saw it in real-time. But the more dangerous kind of eisegesis happens slowly and insidiously.

Creeping on the Sheep

The tentacles of “wokeness” are slithering into our churches under the guise of social justice, inclusivity, tolerance, and love. But the head of the hydra is the same as it’s always been. It’s the human propensity to interpret God’s word through the lens of self.

One of the main features of our guest preacher’s sermon was the repeated exhortation to accept his point of view based on the experiences of others. Though the logical flaw in that practice is obvious – alternative experiences can make the opposite point – it turns up again and again inside the church.

Unlike the full-frontal assault our congregation faced, the more common approach is subtle. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Alisa Childers recently exposed it stealthily baked into a wildly popular churchwide youth curriculum. It’s easier to access young minds in their formative stages when parents aren’t in the room.

When Your Guard is Down

Christian colleges are no different. Astute students expect to confront the all-too-typical atheist professor at the State University. They arrive at school with their antennae up. But some choose to avoid that kind of opposition by attending a Christian college. It seems like a safer environment. Parents and students assume the faculty and staff at a Christian school will be the type to critique the culture from a biblical point of view instead of the other way around. So, they enter with their guard down.

But the fences around Christian colleges don’t keep out bad ideas. Remember, our visiting preacher had been a professor at one for many years. How many young minds had been influenced by his eisegetical methods during that time?

Maybe those who engage these issues in these ways are doing so with pure motives. Maybe they’re simply mistaken. We can be charitable and allow that possibility. But that doesn’t mean we have to be passive when it happens. Beware the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’re not going away. And they’re finding new ways to sneak into the sheep pen.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3kzw4hz
An earlier version can be found in Salvo Magazine at: https://salvomag.com/post/dances-with-wolves

/by

Would It Have Been Better If God Had Not Created Us?

, ,

By Al Serrato

There has always been evil and suffering in the world, and how to make sense of it is a principal object of Christian apologetics. Often, the argument is made that God gave us free will, and as a result, people have the liberty to choose to do evil. But this answer does not satisfy the atheist; often, he will challenge God’s goodness, with comments such as the following:

 

You claim your God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering…or alternatively only create those humans who will freely choose God, and eliminate the possibility of their suffering.

This challenge has much intuitive appeal. We all rail against the suffering that each of us must face, to varying degrees, as our lives progress. We realize the fragility of our human condition, and how inhospitable this creation seems to be to flesh and blood mortals. It is frightening, indeed, to think of all the ways that our lives can be tragically altered, or ended. But does the harshness of this reality “prove” that God is not “good”?

What do you mean by “Good”?

The first step in responding to this challenge is to get a better idea of what is meant by “good.” Generally speaking, “good” is a measure of quality; how a thing or an idea measures up to a standard of performance. A “good” knife is one that appropriately performs its function, or its intended use. A “good” person is one that lives up to a standard of behavior. But how can one determine what that standard should be? For example, any time two opposing things are in conflict, whether they are teams, or armies or ideas, the quality of the outcome will necessarily be decided from the unique perspective of each of the involved parties. For instance, the American victory in World War II was a “good” outcome for Western democracy, but a decidedly “bad” outcome for those who staked their future fortunes on the Nazis. A good outcome for my favorite baseball team is when the other side loses. In short, and at the risk of sounding flippant, when it comes to conflicting worldviews or ideas, a “win” is the outcome which is good for the winner and bad for the loser.

With this basic distinction in mind, it would seem that, at least preliminarily, answering whether it was “better” to have “foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering” would depend on the person being asked. For those spending eternity in heaven with a God of infinite power, who intends to allow us to live eternally and joyfully in his presence, He certainly did the right thing in creating us and in giving us this opportunity. Infinite and eternal joy and fulfillment versus, well, oblivion – that’s not a difficult choice. By contrast, for the person suffering torment in hell, realizing that he will spend eternity aware of, but separated from, this awesome being, it will probably seem “better” that man was never created.

Who decides what’s “better?”

But let’s take it to a deeper level. How does one decide which of two sides is right in claiming that a successful conclusion according to their desires is an objectively “good” outcome. For example, the Nazis deemed victory in Europe a good outcome. Would their victory actually have made Nazi domination of Europe a “good” result? The Nazis would argue that in the period of a few short years they transformed Germany from a beleaguered nation experiencing great suffering because of the Versailles Peace Treaty to an economic powerhouse, a state marked by efficiency and great industry. They sought to expand that “efficiency” to the rest of Europe, what they would claim to be a good result. The Allies countered that their victory was not good simply because their side won. As the victors, they did not simply assert that they were right and then impose punishment on the vanquished. Instead, they tried the Nazi leaders in what is known to history as the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the purpose of which was to establish that crimes against humanity had been committed. The underlying premise was that the “good” accomplished by the Allies was not a subjective good, i.e. we’re glad we won and you lost, but an objective good, i.e. Nazi officials were guilty of conduct that was objectively evil, and therefore justly punished. The premise of the trials was that such objective knowledge of good was available to us, and not that the might of the victor makes right. But how can this objective assessment be made, if each side can claim that “good” is what suits them? This, of course, is a frequent argument of the theist. While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality, because only the existence of a transcendent being provides the basis for judging objectively the “good” or “evil” of any conduct under consideration.

“While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality.”

Without such an objective and transcendent judge, the atheist’s conclusions are mere opinions, mere statements of likes or dislikes. By that standard, the challenger here is left saying that having people end up in hell displeases him. To conclude that allowing anyone to suffer in hell is worse than not creating at all, the atheist must appeal to a standard of good and evil, a standard of goodness. But what is that standard?

Christians can at least make sense of this standard: it is for the Creator to decide. As applied to my World War Two example, which side had objective good on its side is not difficult to determine. Granted, this does not mean that the Allies did no wrong, or where completely free of evil action. No, the law and rules applied to them as much as to the Axis powers and history shows that there were indeed transgressions by the western powers. But only an Allied victory could be deemed an objectively good outcome, one consistent with God’s desires. Contrary to Nazi philosophy, all human beings are made in God’s image and are therefore endowed with God-given rights that no government can justly take from them.

It’s for God to Decide

Returning to the question raised by the challenger, the answer is the same: it is for the Creator to decide. Given his perfect knowledge, He is in a better position to judge which is a better outcome. Indeed, challenging God in this fashion seems rather presumptuous. The Creator of this universe is obviously immensely intelligent and powerful. That we should decide what He should do in creating – how He should go about assigning a value to competing options – makes about as much sense as my dog giving me advice on careers or on moral issues. Without the proper frame of reference, a proper sense of humility should prevent us from telling God how he should have approached His creative work.

In the end, foregoing creation would not have been a “good” solution for the many individuals who responded to God’s gift and are, or will be, experiencing eternity in His presence. When you combine this with the realization that people who are separated from God are separated by their own choice and not simply chosen at random, then it would not be fair to deprive so many of such joy when those who have refused God’s gift have done so of their own volition.

Recommended Resources:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

/by

Scientism And Secularism

By Luke Nix

All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today’s culture for people to accept “scientism,” which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.

Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity’s knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians’ internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide “…reasons for the hope that [they] have…” (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I’ll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations.

Key Points:

  • Strong scientism is the idea that the sciences are the only legitimate sources of knowledge about reality. Other sources of knowledge are not even entertained.
  • Weak scientism “allows” for other sources of knowledge but holds that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Thus it has forced all other knowledge disciplines to reinterpret their findings according to the science of the day. Ultimately it is strong scientism by a “less-threatening” name.
  • Because there is no other (ultimate) source of knowledge outside the sciences, there is no moral knowledge, historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, or theological knowledge. This has resulted in the relativism we see in the university and culture today.
  • Numerous examples of non-scientifically verifiable claims and knowledge do exist.
  • In fact, the very claim of scientism is one such example, making scientism a self-refuting claim. Thus it is necessarily false and is actually an enemy of science (and knowledge) in the long run.
  • Science judges philosophy, and philosophy judges science. Depending on which claim must be established before the other can be judged.
  • Proper order placement of knowledge disciplines has effects on claims about the beginning of the universe, origin of life, existence of mental states, and the existence of objective morality and beauty among many others.
  • Scientism has stunted the debates surrounding theistic evolution and intelligent design by precluding non-scientific knowledge disciplines from the debates.
  • There are at least five different models for how science and theology can move forward together in their discovery of what is real and true.

Some Important Quotes:

“In order for science and certain other intellectual disciplines to be possible, we humans must be able to use our reason to go beyond our sense, reach into the world’s deep structure, and grasp, formulate, and verify the theories we form about that deep structure.”

“To the extent that scientism is embraced in our culture, our moral and spiritual claims will be ‘de-cognitivized.’ In other words, our deepest beliefs about life, knowledge, history, and reality will seem to be utterly implausible–not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration.”

“These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one’s claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue.”

“The first problem with weak (and strong) scientism is that it diminishes the intellectual authority of other important fields, especially biblical studies and theology.”

“Advocates of weak scientism are confused about the relative cognitive strength of an assumption and a claim that is based on that assumption. Weak scientism believes that a claim based on an assumption has greater warrant than the strength of the assumption itself. In reality, though, the claim is only as good as the assumption upon which it rests. And because the assumptions are not scientific assumptions, but rather philosophical assumptions, philosophy has a kind of primacy over science. Therefore, weak scientism’s claim that science always take precedence over other disciplines is false.”

“…a culture, which has a set of background assumptions–or, a plausibility structure–sets a framework for what people think, which affects how that they are willing to listen, evaluate, feel, and behave. The framework shapes what people consider plausible or implausible.”

“Often, in order to get people to hear the gospel, we have to address solely a person’s private, felt needs and promise that Jesus will change their lives and help them. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as it is rooted in the deeper claim that Christianity is true, is based on solid evidence, and can be known to be true. But scientism has forced the church to offer the gospel simply because it works rather than because it is true and can be known to be such.”

“Classically, freedom meant the power to do what one ought to do…Contemporary freedom has come to be understood as the right to do whatever one wants to do…By undermining moral knowledge, scientism has provided the context for the contemporary view of freedom and, consequently, it has led to moral chaos.”

“It is not enough just to know Scripture; as Christians, we must also understand the systems of thought, practice, and value in our culture that are worldly, and be able to make this clear to fellow Christians and explain how to refute those ungodly systems using both biblical and nonbiblical evidence (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5).”

“Christians must be taught not only what they believe but why they ought to believe it. This will especially involves exposing and undermining scientism, and dealing with issues relating to science and the Bible.”

“The very concept of ‘faith’ has been redefined and has now replaced reason. Today, faith is choosing to believe something in the absence of evidence or reasons for the choice. Faith used to mean a confidence or trust based on what one knows. Given the current definition, ubiquitous throughout the church, we Christians have unintentionally played right into the hands of advocates of scientism. By thinking of faith in this way, we are tacitly implying that we believe in the tenets of Christianity without any evidence or reasons at all.”

Recommendations

  • The first recommendation I will give is for any Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions(whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward.
  • My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level.
  • My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins.
  • Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)     

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3xTWJZu

 

/by

Are There Colossal Contradictions in the Gospels? A Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer

,

By Jonathan McLatchie

Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah? [i]). In a recent series of videos published on Rabbi Singer’s YouTube channel, he responds to remarks made by Professor R.L. Solberg following their recent debate in Nashville, Tennessee on whether Jesus is the promised Hebrew Messiah. In this and subsequent articles, I want to address some of the claims made by Rabbi Singer in this series of videos that I hold to be in error. In this article, I will address the most recent video in this series, which is provocatively titled, “Colossal contradictions in the Gospels!” In this video, Singer advances two supposed instances of contradiction between the gospel accounts, one relating to the timing of Jesus’ passion, and the other relating to the resurrection. Let us address both in turn.

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

In the video, Tovia argues that John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, contrary to the synoptic gospels that have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover. The motivation for this redaction on John’s part supposedly is that John wanted to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, since Jesus is thought by John to be the fulfilment of the imagery associated with the Passover lamb.

Rabbi Singer reads John 19:14 as indicating that it was the day of preparation for Passover. However, this is not a necessary translation of the genitive word for Passover, πάσχα and in fact English translations usually render this expression “day of preparation of the Passover.” In fact, this term (‘day of preparation’) is also used by Mark (15:42), who defines it as the day before the Sabbath. This accords with John 19:31, which says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” Verse 42 also indicates the hurriedness of the burial of Jesus in a tomb that was close at hand, since it was the Jewish day of Preparation. Therefore, John concurs with Mark that Jesus’ death took place the day prior to the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” Though he adds that this Sabbath was a high day, this most probably means that it wasn’t any ordinary Sabbath day, but rather a Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread — that is to say, it was a particularly special feast day.

Singer also misreads John 18:28, where the Jewish leaders are concerned about entering Pilate’s dwelling, lest they be defiled and thereby become unable to eat the Passover. According to Singer, this undermines the contention that the Passover Seder had already been consumed. Singer apparently misses that, supposing them to be concerned about the Passover Seder, their worry would make no sense since their defilement would expire at sundown (and they could partake of the meal after washing). Therefore, their worry must concern some meal other than the Seder. And, in fact, the initial Seder, or supper, that commences the Passover celebration is not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover. There is even another ritual meal, the chagigah (“food offering”), that is consumed during the following day. This is supported by Numbers 28:18-23, in which we read,

18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 19 but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD: two bulls from the herd, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a regular burnt offering.

Verse 18 indicates that the food offering was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread (which would be the fifteenth of Nisan), the same day — as the Jews reckon days — that the Seder was consumed. Verse 23 indicates that these were to be offered in addition to the regular morning burnt offering, which implies that the Chagigah was eaten during the day time. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicates multiple times that the Jews used the term “Passover” to refer to the entirety of the feast of unleavened bread:

  • “As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 14.21
  • “As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 18.29
  • “And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover…” Josephus, Wars 2.10

Therefore, John’s account in fact dovetails perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests could not have been about the initial Passover seder, since their defilement would have expired at sundown and, following washing, they would have been able to partake of the seder in the evening. The seder was already over, having been consumed the previous evening, and they must be concerned about some other meal in Passover, most likely the chagigah.

Rabbi Singer claims that John 13 does not concern a Passover seder. However, this again is false. We read in John 13:1-2:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper…

In Greek, the text does not say that the supper was before the feast. Rather, it says that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. D.A. Carson notes rightly that “there is nothing in the words themselves to discourage us from taking the clause as an introduction to the footwashing only, and not to the discourses that follow the meal.” [ii]

Indeed, the most natural reading of the reference to the supper in John 13:2, in light of 13:1, is that the last supper was in fact the Passover meal. Craig Blomberg concurs [iii]:

Verse 1 thus stands as a headline over the entire passion narrative (cf. Ridderbos 1997: 452). Because Passover began with a supper-time meal as its most central ritual (and 1 Cor. 11:20 speaks of the Last Supper explicitly as a deipnon), to hear then that the supper was being served (v. 2) would naturally suggest that the Passover had begun (Ridderbos 1997: 455; cf. Michaels 1983: 230; Kleinknecht 1985: 370–371; Burge 2000: 365–367), not that this was some separate supper prior to the Passover (as for Casey 1996: 20–21). If there is still any doubt, as Cullen Story (1989: 317) explains, ‘The presence of Judas, Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, Judas’ departure from the table (implicit in the Synoptics, explicit in John), the affirmation by Peter of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, and Jesus’ prediction of his denial—all of these circumstances together form solid lines of connection between the meal in John 13 and the Synoptic account of the holy supper.’ Almost certainly, then, John intended his audience to understand that he was beginning to describe events that took place on ‘Maundy Thursday’ night, as part of the Passover meal, just as they would already have learned in the oral kerygma.

Though Singer appeals to John 13:29 where some speculate that Judas has been charged with getting what they need for the feast, this argument doesn’t work either since the feast of unleavened bread continues for another week, which easily could be the meaning of the phrase ‘the feast’ in this context. One might object to this that, if there were indeed Passover night, the shops would not have remained open. However, as D.A. Carson notes [iv],

One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishnah Pesahim 4:5). One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishnah Shabbath 23:1).

Another aspect of John 13:29, curiously omitted by Singer — which actually supports my contention that this meal was in fact the Passover seder — is the disciples’ speculation that Judas had been charged by Jesus to give something to the poor. Carson notes that “it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [v]

In addition to the foregoing considerations, two undesigned coincidences confirm that the last supper in John 13 is the same meal as spoken of in the synoptic gospels. In the parallel account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that these are in fact the same meal, and rooted in historical memory.

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Tovia also gives another alleged discrepancy regarding the resurrection accounts, where he points out that, according to Matthew, the women all met Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10), whereas in John it looks like Mary, in her report to Peter & the disciple whom Jesus loved, has no idea what had happened to Jesus’ body (John 20:1-2). One would predict, supposing those accounts to be both anchored in historical memory, that Mary must have left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the risen Jesus. Indeed, I can hardly see any other viable way of harmonizing those accounts. But this is precisely what is suggested by a close reading of John 20:2: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him.” The use of the plural verb there suggests that she had in fact left the larger group of women and that there had in fact been others with her (which comports with the synoptics). This harmonization is not owed to us by the text, supposing them to be in conflict, but the fact that the only viable harmonization is suggested by a close reading of John suggests that these accounts are in fact based on historical memory, being independent accounts that dovetail.

According to John, Mary Magdalene ran back immediately upon noticing the stone rolled away and surmising or seeing the tomb empty (there may have been one or two other women with her, we don’t know). Notice that Matthew does not say that the angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, but rather that he spoke to the women. Thus, it was the women other than Mary Magdalene who left the tomb together as described in Matthew and, while going to tell the disciples, saw Jesus on the way. Matthew says that plural women left the tomb and that “they” saw Jesus on the way but does not expressly say that Mary Magdalene was with them at that time. Again, he may just not have known that she had left the group already, but he does not explicitly say either way. John knew since he was one of the two disciples (along with Peter) to whom Mary Magdalene reported the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus.

We can pick up Mary Magdalene’s story as reported by John. She ran back to get Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away. They came back to the tomb with or slightly ahead of her. By this time the rest of the women have already seen the angels and left. They may even be seeing Jesus on their own route back into the city while Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are on their way back to the tomb. It must be borne in mind that the old city of Jerusalem was a maze. There is no reason at all to expect that these groups would have run into each other. Mary Magdalene (as explained in John) still believes Jesus is dead at this point. She hangs around after Peter and John have looked at the tomb and left in puzzlement. She peers back into the tomb and the angels reveal themselves to her, but she does not understand. She turns around, grieved, and sees Jesus and has the dialogue with him of which we read in John 20. She then goes back to tell the disciples more about all of this. All this time she is not with the other women. When the other women have seen Jesus, they run and tell at least some of the disciples, though they might have to wait for Peter and John to get back from their tomb visit. Of course, we also do not know for sure that all of the disciples were staying together. The other women may actually have gone to see a different set of them in some different location.

Conclusion

In summary, though the alleged discrepancies offered by Rabbi Singer require some investigation to untangle, closer inspection — and more careful reading of the relevant texts — reveals the arguments to be unfounded. The solutions that I have offered to these challenges are not strained or forced harmonizations, but rather are suggested from within the texts themselves. As the nineteenth century Anglican scholar T.R. Birks once noted, “the very test of historical truth…is found in the substantial unity of the various narratives, their partial diversity, and the reconcilable nature of that diversity, when due allowance is made for the purpose of each writer, and the individual character of their separate works.” [vi]

Footnotes

[i] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).

[ii] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 460.

[iii] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 187–188.

[iv] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 475.

[v] Ibid.,

[vi] T.R. Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidencce of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852), 269-271.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3meSo0c

/by

He Gets Us, But Do We Get Him? The Case for Criticizing False Teachers

I once got an angry email from a lady who didn’t like the fact that I criticized a false teacher on our I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist podcast. “You shouldn’t criticize other Christians!” she scolded me.

Do you see the problem with this? There she was criticizing me, another Christian, while claiming you ought not criticize other Christians. To paraphrase Elon Musk, if irony could kill, she’d be dead right now.

Jesus Called Out False Teachers

Apparently, she never considered that Jesus spent much of his time criticizing the false teachings and practices of the religious politicians known as the Pharisees whose hearts were far from God. He also warned people who led young believers astray, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Matt. 18:6).”

Paul exposed five false teachers by name in his letters to Timothy. He warned that “the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3). He also told the Romans to “watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people” (Rom 16:17-18). Notice that the people causing divisions are not those defending the truth, but those who are introducing the false teachings.

In fact, every writer of the New Testament warned against false teachers at some point.  Peter said that “false teachers” would introduce “destructive heresies” that “promise people freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity” (2 Pet. 2:1,19). John wrote, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1John 4:1). The writer of Hebrews told us to “not be carried away by strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9).  Jude said we need to “contend for the faith” because “ungodly people… pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 3-5). James cautioned us about becoming teachers because teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). And the list goes on.

In one sense the entire Bible is one long warning to avoid false teachings and practices. Yet, somehow, modern people are under the impression that it is a bigger sin to warn people of false teaching than to actually be a false teacher!

I say all this because my friend Natasha Crain has taken a bunch of online heat from some fellow Christians for pointing out 7 problems with the “He Gets Us” Campaign, which included two 30 second commercials during this year’s Super Bowl. When you read Natasha’s piece—which has been shared on social media over 26,000 times—you realize that the “He Gets Us” campaign ironically doesn’t get Jesus.

It’s not just that their 30 second commercials leave out the most important truth about Jesus (that could be forgiven—after all it’s only 30 seconds!). But their website misleads people into thinking that Jesus was just a really good man whose primary mission was to achieve social justice. There’s nothing prominent about Him being God or our Savior.

Social Justice Warrior or Savior of the World?

As Natasha observes, the head of the marketing firm behind the campaign explicitly said, “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” That’s why Jesus isn’t being highlighted as our substitute. He’s merely presented as a good example of “peace and love.” A motivational speaker. A social justice warrior.

But that wasn’t Christ’s mission. How do we know? Because he stated his primary mission explicitly. Here are just a few of several statements by Jesus:

  • “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).”
  • “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10).
  • “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17).
  • “Now my soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (Jn. 12:27).
  • “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46)

As Greg Koukl observes in “The Legend of the Social Justice Jesus”, “For Jesus, salvation was not economic prosperity, equal distribution of goods, or sexual liberty without judgment or shame. Instead, salvation came through belief in him, bringing forgiveness of sins and eternal life.”

God didn’t add humanity to his deity and suffer a brutal death to make sure everyone uses the right pronouns. He came to be the ransom who pays for our sins.

Of course, Jesus wants us to love our neighbor, but that’s not a new teaching—it was already the stated policy of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18). Moreover, love in the Bible doesn’t mean approval as the “He Gets Us” campaign implies. Love seeks what’s best for people, and that requires us to oppose any evil a loved one wants to do.  As Paul put it, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:6-7).

So contrary to the “He Gets Us” campaign, Jesus didn’t come to give some new ethical teaching. He came to be “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29)—the ultimate sacrifice that the Old Testament sacrificial system foreshadowed.

So What’s the Big Deal?

Ok, so “He Gets Us” doesn’t get Him. So what? What’s the big deal?

Natasha writes, “’He Gets Us’ has the potential to actually harm the public understanding of Jesus. People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.” I would like to amplify and illustrate this excellent point.

“People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.”
Natasha Crain

Imagine you see a commercial for a place you know nothing about called St. Jude’s.  The commercial only speaks of the good food that they serve children. When you go to the website highlighted on the commercial, you only see more about the food. Their mission statement says nothing about St. Jude’s being a hospital or the fact that their mission is to treat and try to heal children with childhood cancer free of charge. They only push the food angle. You come away thinking this is some kind of restaurant that caters to kids.

Who would think that’s an accurate commercial? Of course, they must serve food to the children, but that’s not their primary mission—it’s not why they exist. While a commercial can’t give complete information, it should at least give accurate information.

Instead of informing people, such a commercial would be misinforming people. The people who saw that and the website would first have to unlearn the misinformation fed them before they would be open to learn what St. Jude’s is actually about. And that could be deadly. If you had a child with cancer, you could miss out on having your child cured for free at St. Jude’s hospital because their campaign obscured that life-saving mission.

There is a similar danger to the “He Gets Us” campaign. While there may be some good that comes of it—like spurring conversations about Jesus—it’s outweighed by the fact that many unbelievers will be misled into thinking that Jesus came just to make our lives better here. That his primary mission was to achieve social justice on this earth. People will have to unlearn that false teaching after being led astray by the campaign. They risk missing a free life-saving cure for their sins by the great physician. They risk missing eternal life.

If only Christians would act like Jesus and the apostles to correct the “smooth talk” that “deceives the minds of naïve people.” If only they would “contend for the faith” instead of buying into whatever “their itching ears want to hear.”

Wait, that’s exactly what Natasha has done. And yet some Christians are mad at her!  They should go back and read their Bibles. Jesus and the apostles didn’t hold their tongues because their goal wasn’t to be “nice.”  Their goal was to love people by warning them of harmful misinformation and replacing it with the truth just like Natasha has done. (For more, click here.)

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Podcast: He Gets Us Why Don’t We Get Him | Frank Turek

Blogpost: How to Explain to Your Kids Why Social Justice Warriors Hate Christians So Much | Natasha Crain

Blogpost: 7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign | Natasha Crain

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case, and is co-author of the new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

Natasha Crain’s Original Blog on the “He Gets Us” Campaign: http://bit.ly/3ZjMiKm

 

/by

Trying to Make Sense of Evil and Suffering

By: Justin Angelos

Have you ever been in the situation where you are trying to make sense of evil and suffering? At some point in a person’s life, there will be some sort of pain, or suffering, and some form of evil, either natural or moral evil. And then the question naturally arises, why? Why me? Why does God allow me to go through this? The question of evil and suffering can be a big stumbling block for people, in fact, this is why some people become atheists. In fact, atheists use evil and suffering as a weapon to discredit Christianity and say, there is no God. “How can an all-powerful all-loving God allow innocent people to suffer?” This is the type of question atheists will throw at theists.

Trying to Make Sense of the Origin of Moral and Natural Evil

Genesis chapter 3 gives us the origin of evil and suffering, 1. “Now the serpent said to the woman, did God really, you must not eat from any tree in the garden”? 2.” The woman said to the serpent, we may eat from the trees in the garden but, God did say, you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch, or you will die.” (Gen 3:2 NIV).

The serpent, casts doubt in eve’s mind, the serpent twists God’s word by saying, “you will certainly not die, for God knows that when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, know good and evil.” (V4) Genesis 3:16 God said to the woman I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing, and your desire shall be for your husband. In Genesis 3:17, God tells Adam, “Cursed is the ground because of you.” As a result of Adam’s sin, God cursed the ground and removed His blessing upon the earth.

The problem of evil and suffering is not only a question for Christians but also a problem for every other worldview. I once heard someone say, “Atheism does not remove the pain, it just removes the hope.” Philosophers have been unable to prove that an all-powerful, all-loving God and the existence of evil are logically contradictory, as they are not mutually exclusive like a married bachelor or a squared circle, the purpose of this article is not to solve the logical or philosophical problem of evil but, hopefully, shed some light on why God might allow evil and suffering.

Trying to Make Sense of the Definition of Evil

First, evil is not a thing, evil is a privation of good, in other words, good and evil are not relational properties, and good does not depend on evil for its existence. We can have good without evil, but we cannot have evil without good. Think of evil like this, imagine a shiny new BMW convertible car with a V6 engine, now imagine that same car with rust all over it. you can have a BMW without the rust, but rust would not be possible without the existence of the BWM. So, evil is a corruption of what is good. Therefore, the existence of evil does not disprove God’s existence, therefore there must be some morally sufficient reasons why God would allow evil and suffering.[i]

Is All Suffering Bad?

I have concluded that not all suffering is a bad thing, there is a little girl who was born with a rare disease called CIPA, which is a disease in which the little girl cannot feel any pain at all. She can step on a thick rusty nail, and she would not feel a thing, this little girl is literally incapable of feeling any physical pain. At first one would think, “what a blessing” but, it is not a blessing at all. It is a life-threatening disease.

The morning prayer of this little girl’s mother is, “Dear God, please let my little girl feel pain.”[ii] Her mother pleads with God to let her daughter feel pain, the very thing we wish God would remove from our lives, is the very thing her mother is asking God for. I remember being in agony laying in the emergency room with my gallbladder in 2020 asking God, “please remove this pain” and here is a little girl’s mother, who is asking God for pain.

Leibniz and Lennox on Evil and Suffering

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked, what the best possible world is, and out of all the possible worlds, which one is the best world God could have created? God could have created nothing at all, but the best possible world God could have created is a world in which free will exists, and the possibility to freely choose and to freely reject.[iii] In any possible world in which there is no free will, love can never truly exist because love, requires freedom, a man cannot force a woman to fall in love with him, she must freely decide to love him.  When people choose to love and worship God, it is freely done out of genuine love for God. This is not possible if, we were to live in a world where all of humanity is determined.

Dr. John Lennox explains it this way, “could God have created a world without suffering? Yes, He could have, but you and I would not live in it because, it would empty the world of something most precious to our humanity, and that is the capacity to love, and our capacity to love, hinges on our capacity to choose.” [iv]

Trying to Make Sense of Evil and Suffering through the Cross

The unique thing about Christianity is—at the heart of the gospel message—is a Cross. And on that cross, God himself suffers incomprehensible evil and suffering. Which says that God has not remained distant from our human suffering.[v] Christianity offers you a Savior, a personal God, who has bled and suffered in our world.

This also says, that God does truly care about our suffering, and the Lord who suffered, rose from the dead conquering sin and death and offering us eternal life, and the beauty, and the joy that awaits, our suffering becomes irrelevant when standing in the presence of God himself, we may never have a comprehensive understanding of why, God allows suffering, but, There is a Savior, who has suffered in our world, and a Savior who truly does cares about our suffering, and we have a Savior who truly does understand our pain.

“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5 ESV)

Recommended reading on Evil and suffering: Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?

Footnotes

[i] Sean McDowell, Clay Jones, why does God allow suffering? (Biola apologetics MA lecture week 4 biola.edu, 2023)

[ii] Lance Cashion. “Why Pain Is Good.” Lance Cashion, May 1, 2013. https://revolutionofman.org/why-pain-is-good/.

[iii] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia. “Best of all possible worlds.” Encyclopedia Britannica, June 6, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/best-of-all-possible-worlds.

[iv] VeritasForum. “The Loud Absence: Where Is God in Suffering? | John Lennox at Harvard Medical School.” YouTube. YouTube, December 19, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPm6Y-pANYI.

[v] John Lennox, Where is God in Suffering?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Seattle native Justin Angelos brings a passion for evangelism and discipleship along with theology and apologetics. He has studied at Biola University and Liberty University. Justin focuses on providing help for those who suffer from emotional and anxiety issues. He currently resides in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3lQlgff

 

/by

A Christian Apologist Responds to Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Satanic Grammy Performance

If you watched the 2023 Grammys, then you probably saw Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s blasphemous pop hypnotic hit “Unholy.” This song has been buzzing. It has more than a hundred million views and earned a Grammy for “Best Pop Duo/Group Performance.”

Musically, it feels a bit like R&B meets belly dancing. Its Middle Eastern lilt and thumping rhythm lend a dark allure, as the lyrics spin a sordid tale of excess and adultery. One philandering husband neglects his wife and kids at home, sneaking out to a gender-bending strip club — “Body Shop.” Sung from the perspectives of the club’s prostitutes, the story is laced with luxury name brands, product shots for condoms, and vivid descriptions of sexual deviance.

Visually, the music video and live Grammy performance portray a kind of satanic drag cabaret, with the lead singers Sam Smith and Kim Petras as Satan and a stripper, respectively. In the video, the “Body Shop” translates into a speak-easy strip club in the backroom of an auto-body garage. The dancers crowding and piling on top of each other rub and writhe in ecstasy.

Allusions to kink and orgies abound. The story ends with the husband dying for his sins in a car crash, as the wife sheds her coat and wig to reveal she’s really a male stripper. At the Grammys, the story is streamlined. Kim Petras swoons and sings in a stripper cage. Pyrotechnics and red lighting create a hellish ambiance, as gender-bending demon dancers worship a devil-horned Sam Smith. This song has all the subtly of a jet engine.

Scrolling through social media, one can see a predictable partisan divide. Right wing pundits aired their grievances (rightfully so), as the left sang its praises, making sure to point out that Sam Smith is gay and gender queer, and Kim Petras is a transgender woman (male identifying as a woman).[i]

What should we make of this megahit?

With all the hype surrounding this song, it invites critique from several angles. We’ll consider some of the more obvious ones here. First, we’ll ask whether this is just an elaborate marketing ploy. Second, we’ll address whether it’s just art. Third, we’ll ask whether it’s satanic. In answering those three questions, we’ll cover a fourth angle, LGBTQ ideology. Lastly, we’ll ask what wisdom we can glean from this song. It’s clearly not just a song. It’s a symbol, perhaps even an anthem. And we do well not to downplay or exaggerate it. Instead, we can practice discernment and draw from it ministry insights into our cultural milieu.

Is this just a marketing ploy?

Behind the garish lights and red leather, it’s easy to see the machinations of marketing strategists. It has the feel of choreographed controversy, like a well-rehearsed dance number between left-wing libertines and right-wing moralists.

It’s been said that “all publicity, is good publicity.” By that measure, this song does not disappoint. It’s obviously meant to offend. It displays fire shows, hellish lighting, gender-bending kink, and burlesque aesthetics. But more than that, it’s blasphemy. The dance numbers are choreographed sexcapades punctuated by the Catholic sign of the cross (i.e., crossing oneself). This gesture connotes a blasphemous kind of sexual sacrament.

It would be too simplistic to dismiss this song as a gimmick, as mere shock-value. Sure, controversy draws crowds, but this song is more than that. It’s not just offensive. It’s transgressive. It’s an affront to Christianity, traditional marriage, monogamy, binary gender, heteronormativity, chastity, modesty. And it does all that with a wink and a smirk. They know what they’re doing. It’s supposed to upset people like you and me. It’s supposed to drive us to anger-blogging on social media, giving it free publicity at our expense. Meanwhile, we come off looking like puritanical luddites with no taste in music.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that marketing strategy is well underway. I just don’t think this song is reducible entirely to a marketing ploy. We cannot say it’s just orchestrated outrage, because if that’s all they wanted, they could have gotten a bigger response by putting Sam Smith in blackface with Kim Petras in a MAGA hat. Now that would have taken some real courage!

The point isn’t merely to offend. It’s to offend the right people. That is, offend the people on the right. “Unholy” is strategically marketed to offend the right people by celebrating irreverence, sex-positivity, and LGBTQ practice.[ii]

Is it just art?

Whatever else this song may be, it’s still art. And that might be its strongest defense. For those who see this song as a defiant strike against oppression and moral busybodies, this song sounds like artful indignation.

Historically speaking, music has often been a fulcrum for toppling authority and transgressing boundaries. Who can think of the Civil Rights Movement without the resonant refrain of “We Shall Overcome”? Or think of women’s equality without hearing Aretha Franklin demand “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.” (1967)? Communist Russia and East Berlin undoubtedly took a hit from the punk rock movement in the 1970’s and ’80’s. I like to think that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 to the tune of “We’re Not Gonna Take it!” (Twisted Sister, 1984). We could likewise note the cultural sway in Elvis’s hips, Liberace’s hats, Mick Jagger’s lips, and Ozzy’s bats. Music, if nothing else, is powerful. It has a long history of deliberately breaking cultural norms, for good or ill.

In that vein Sam Smith and Kim Petras are nothing new. They are challenging moral norms about marriage, family, and gender identity, and they’re framing it as an anti-religious dig at Christian conservatives. The question remains, however, is all that justified in the name of art?

That “art defense” might go something like this:

Premise 1: Art can be a justified way to break cultural mores.

Premise 2: This song is art.

Conclusion: Therefore, this song is justified in breaking cultural mores.

I won’t dispute premises one and two. I don’t need to. The argument is invalid. It has an undistributed middle term. Simply put, neither premise is talking about all art. “Art” is the undistributed term here. We can explain this fallacy with a question distributing the middle term: Is everything done in the name of art justified?

Clearly no. Art doesn’t justify murder, or rape, or animal sacrifice. Evil is still evil, even in artistic form. The same is true of misdemeanors and “poor taste.” Imagine if Smith and Petras used this song to come out as “trans-Black,” or to celebrate Christopher Columbus, or came out as pro-life? It’s hard to imagine their progressive supporters still saying, “It’s just art!”

In reality, this song was never just art. It’s also marketing, fashion, entertainment, and culture. It’s a commentary on family, identity, sexual ethics, and religion. And it’s a socio-political statement endorsing the LGBTQ movement. Sam Smith leaves no question about that. Speaking of his[iii] experience in this song, he says he felt “courageous to step into the queer joy of it all,” and “[i]t feels like emotional, sexual, and spiritual liberation.”[iv] The rest of the album (Gloria, 2023) reinforces that message. Yes, that messaging is framed in a piece of music. So, it can be artfully indirect. But the message still comes across loud and clear.

Is it Satanic?

If you’re thinking this is what Satanism looks like, however, you’re only half right. “Unholy” clearly uses hellish satanic imagery, but compared to modern-day Satanism, it’s a cartoon. The main streams of Satanism today deny the existence of any literal devil.[v] They’re atheistic. They deny any supernatural realm, along with all gods, angels, demons, and devils. Satanists today are more likely to be edgy, humanistic, liberal activists, with a serious authority complex.[vi] So it’s no surprise when the Satanists said of the Grammy performance, it was “alright,” “nothing particularly special,” and “red clothing, fire and devil horns…[are] all kind of passé now.”[vii]

But “Unholy” doesn’t need formal ties to Satanism to reflect the essence of Satanism, namely, radical autonomy.[viii] Variously identified with “self-determinism,” “pleasure-seeking,” the “left-hand path,” or even the “Witch’s Rede” (Do what thou wilt), this radical autonomy is the beating heart of Satanism. As one source explains, “Satanists emphasize being your true self, personal achievement and living life to the fullest….with one of the key [tenets] being individuals are their own Gods.”[ix] In that way, Smith and Petra’s “Unholy” is satanic. It’s just not unique, since Satanism absorbs almost the entire pop music industry.

What wisdom can we glean from “Unholy”? 

“There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9),[x] and “Unholy” is no exception. We do well to expect incendiary ploys, sexual depravity, and even blasphemy from the entertainment industry. St. Peter foresees in the first century that “many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed…Those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority… have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed” (2 Peter 2:2,10,14).

Since we know it’s coming, we can “brace for impact.” We can be prepared. That may be as simple as turning the channel, skipping a track, or just unplugging. Most everyone could benefit from more classical music and less screen time. Avoidance isn’t everything. But it is an important step toward a deliberate discerning approach to media. We can’t afford to be passive recipients, swallowing whatever is fed to us.

Sometimes we need a media fast. Maybe get rid of your TV. Or unsubscribe from a music or streaming service. Or maybe avoid genres of music or shows that, for the most part, aren’t glorifying God. The rest of the time, when we’re not fasting, we should still be dieting. The bewildering mass of trash and distraction doesn’t deserve near as much attention as we give it.[xi] Our money, time, and attention are all votes of support. So, we do well to support only those causes that we believe in.

But what about Sam Smith and Kim Petras? 

Those mega stars are probably not in your immediate sphere of influence. They aren’t likely your “neighbors” in that sense. We can still pray for them. If we love like Christ, we can find encouraging truths to say about them. We shouldn’t mock or insult them. They’re created in God’s image just like you and me (Gen 1:26–28). Even when we criticize their behavior, beliefs, or their music, we should still speak from a position of love and compassion.

Meanwhile, we have an abiding responsibility to live and love like Christ in our home and our communities and to guard our hearts (Prov. 4:23; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 5; Titus 2). Guarding our hearts includes handling music and other media with the discernment of a dietician. To use St. Paul’s language, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil 4:8).

Footnotes

[i] Curtis M. Wong, “Sam Smith and Kim Petras Take Grammys to Hell with Fiery Performance of ‘Unholy,’ HuffPost Entertainment, February 5, 2023, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sam-smith-kim-petras-grammys-2023-unholy-performance_n_63e06afae4b01a4363956e2a; “Satanic Smith: Watch Pop Singer Go Full Satan During Grammy Performance,” Sean Hannity, February 6, 2023, https://hannity.com/media-room/satanic-smith-watch-pop-singer-go-full-satan-during-grammy-performance/; Derrick Clifton, “Sam Smith’s They/Them Pronoun Backlash Highlights an Ongoing Cultural Disconnect,” Think, September 19, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/sam-smith-s-they-them-pronoun-backlash-highlights-ongoing-cultural-ncna1056136.

[ii] “Sex positivity” is defined as a permissive and nonjudgmental attitude toward all consensual sexual expression and sexual behaviors, regarding all of it as healthy. For more on this, see Hillary Ferrer and Amy Davison, Mama Bear Apologetics: Guide to Sexuality (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2021), 131–48.

[iii] Sam Smith identifies with “they/them” pronouns. Sophie Lewis, “Sam Smith Announces Their Pronouns,” CBS News, September 13. 2019, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sam-smith-pronouns-sam-smith-announces-their-pronouns-are-they-them-2019-09-13/. With no disrespect intended, I refer to Smith in conventional “he/him” pronouns for the sake of clarity. Being an individual biological male, Smith is not a biologically neutral plurality as suggested by “they/them” pronouns.

[iv] Lea Veloso, “Unholy’ by Sam Smith and Kim Petras Lyrics Are ‘Liberating’ — Here’s How They Explore ‘Queer Joy,’” Stylecaster, February 5, 2023, accessed February 8, 2023 at https://stylecaster.com/unholy-sam-smith-kim-petras-lyrics/.

[v] See “Church of Satan vs. Satanic Temple,” The Satanic Temple (c.2014), accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-temple.

[vi] I explain this characterization in greater length in “Satanic Lessons on Religious Freedom: A Review of Hail Satan?” Christian Research Journal, October 28, 2019 at https://www.equip.org/articles/satanic-lessons-on-religious-freedom/.

[vii] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ, February 8, 2023, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.tmz.com/2023/02/08/sam-smith-kim-petras-unholy-grammy-performance-church-satan-underwhelmed/.

[viii] “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple (2014), tenets 3-4, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us.

[ix] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ (8 Feb 2023).

[x] All Scripture quotations are from the ESV.

[xi] I discuss a lot of examples in John D. Ferrer, “Sabrina the Teenage Anti-Christ,” Christian Research Journal, July 11, 2019 at: https://www.equip.org/articles/sabrina-the-teenage-anti-christ/.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John is a licensed minister with earned degrees from Charleston Southern (BA), Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD). His doctorate is in philosophy of religion, minoring in ethics. As a new edition to Crossexamined in 2023, John brings a wealth of experience to the team including debating atheists, preaching the Gospel, teaching apologetics in schools and churches, publishing books and articles, and creating websites. John is also a teaching fellow with Equal Rights Institute and president of Pella Pro-Life in his hometown of Pella, Iowa. There he resides with his lovely and brilliant wife Hillary Ferrer, founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. Together they specialize in cultural apologetics with an emphasis on family-based apologetic training.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Ee681K

/by

Are you having a hard time dealing with your doubts?

By Jason Jimenez

Have you ever doubted what you believe as a Christian?

The truth is, we all have. Every Christian (including your pastor) has had doubts. Even legends like John the Baptist, John Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Charles Spurgeon, and Martin Luther all struggled with their own set of doubts.

Perhaps you doubt because you have a misconstrued understanding of God. Or maybe you doubt because you underwent a traumatic experience and have never recovered from it. Whatever the reason, you will constantly battle with doubt until you genuinely give it over to God.

However, many Christians don’t know what to do with their doubts. Some feel embarrassed to be questioning God’s love. At the same time, other Christians are confused by the number of challenges brought against Christianity.

Remember the disciple, Thomas? You know, the guy we refer to as “Doubting Thomas”? In John 20, we read that the disciples told Thomas that they had seen the resurrected Christ. Thomas responds by saying, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (20:25). However, Thomas has gotten a bad rap. Thomas wasn’t being defiant and rejecting the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. He was merely expressing his doubt on the fact that he personally hadn’t seen Jesus physically in his resurrected body.

So what did Thomas do?

He put forward some reasonable criteria if he was to believe. Thomas took the gruesome facts about the crucifixion and specified what sort of evidence he would need that lined up to the facts to convince him to believe. Thomas conveyed reasonable doubts in search of reasonable answers. And that’s precisely what Jesus gave to Thomas.

I’m reminded of what one young man told me after I spoke at an event in California. He said he decided to register for the event at the last minute because he felt God wanted him to go. The young man shared that his doubts consumed him so much that he didn’t know what to believe anymore. At this point in his life, the man stopped praying, reading the Bible and recently stopped attending church. But after hearing the case for Christianity and being around passionate Christians who listened to him and answered his questions, he told me he felt his doubts disappear.

So, if you have doubts, don’t think for a second that God won’t lead you to the answers you seek in your life. No matter how strong your doubts might be, God is faithful. He has given you the Spirit of truth to help you work out your doubts, just like He helped Thomas and the young man who came to the apologetic conference. Both men were struggling, questioning, and searching for answers. God didn’t leave them in a state of confusion but sent them the answers they needed to overcome their doubts and strengthen their faith in Jesus.

God will do the same for you. All you need to do is ask God for help and allow Him to guide you to the right mentors, Christian resources, and credible explanations that will sharpen your faith. Peter writes these inspirational words, “Make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)       

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3YzEaFL

/by

Satan at the Grammy’s?

J.R. Klein (Josh Klein)

The Grammy’s have long been a cultural symbol of transgression. The goal of the Grammy’s used to be to celebrate the best music artists in the world. It was an awards night. Or, at least, it used to be.

They have always been edgy and culturally progressive. For instance, in 1973 Helen Reddy thanked God for her award but referred to God as “she” while doing so.[i] The secular entertainment industry lends itself to this sort of subversive rhetoric.

But recently the Grammy’s have become more than a shocking cultural display while recognizing the best secular artists of the day.  Long before 2023’s shocking performance by Sam Smith and Kim Petras[ii], they had shifted from shocking and transgressive to lewd and Satanic.

This is not a conspiratorial statement. You will hear no talk of Illuminati, MK Ultra, or Demon possession here, but what the Grammy’s has become, whether the people who are involved realize it or not, is a worship service to deeds of darkness and even Satan himself.  This slide may have been overtly realized in 2023, but elements of Satanic worship have made their way into the Grammy’s for decades.

First, I want to explain what I mean by Satanic.  I do not mean Occult, or the literal worship of Satan.  There were, as far as I am aware, no literal virgin sacrifices or summoning of demons on February 5th. What I do mean is an unwitting plunge into the darkness of which the performers, actors, and producers are barely aware.  As they dance in overtly Satanic gear they think they are shedding light on darkness through mockery, but they accomplish the opposite and open themselves up to demonic influence in the process.

Judge less, love more, they say,[iii] but love means affirmation in this realm. Reality pushes pack, love cannot affirm untruth.[iv]

The best trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the culture that he either does not exist or that following his ideals leads to power and pleasure without limits. Satan’s goal is not to be worshipped. He is not interested in that. His goal is simply to stop the worship of the one true God and destroy what is good. It could look overt, like it did on February 5th, or, more often, it looks normal – the choice to commit to a sport over church, the choice to pursue a career at the expense of your marriage. Satan was once an angel of light, he understands how to deceive, but once the culture has bought the covert deceptions he will move in for the kill.

In John 10:10 Jesus gives us a behind the scenes look at Satan’s goals. He comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. A performance need not be invoking Satanic worship or summoning Demons to be considered a Satanic ritual – it need only be a full embrace of darkness, theft of light, death of good, and destruction of holiness.

Sam Smith’s performance accomplished all three in a single song.  He declares darkness light, he mocks God’s created order (declaring himself as non-binary, and his co-performer is transgender), and he destroys holiness with a full-on plunge into radical self-autonomy and pleasure.  The song he performs is literally entitled Unholy. It glorifies infidelity and promiscuity.

Once we recognize that Satanism, according to its forefathers Aleister Crowley and Anton Lavey, is not merely the worship of Satan, but first and foremost the worship of self we can begin to understand the influence it has had on the entertainment industry.

Perhaps another time we can do a deep dive into the history of both Crowley and Lavey, but suffice it to say that the modern Satanic movements are built on their ideology. Crowley was a much more religious figure than Lavey. Lavey[v] sought to popularize Satanism by tying it to an atheistic framework, Crowley[vi], on the other hand, bought into the spiritual realm. One strand of thought that extending from Crowley to influence the Laveyan popularization[vii] of Satanism, however, was a quote from Crowley himself, “Do What Thou Wilt.”[viii]

Lavey would often scoff at the idea that his group worshiped a literal Satan (as would Crowley to some degree) but that the Church of Satan stood for what Satan symbolized in Paradise Lost. A 17th century poem by John Milton[ix]. Radical self-autonomy, including the ability to choose what is right and wrong rather than simply to recognize the difference between right and wrong, stood at the heart of Laveyan Satanism.

The irony of the Satanic church is, while their Satanic worship is supposedly tongue-in-cheek, their worship of self and desire to choose for themselves what is right and wrong is, in fact, the very same thing Satan used in the garden to entice Eve. In essence, they worship the literal Satan without even realizing that is what they are doing, and Satan would have it no other way.

So, what does this have to do with the Grammy’s?

Within the backdrop of this form of Satanism we find the rise of the modern entertainment industry. The worship of self-gratification and self-actualization transgresses the Christian belief of self-sacrifice and holy living (Matthew 16; Rom. 12, Col. 3:5-10). Whether intentional or not, the worship of self leads to deeds of darkness and the glorification thereof.

One need not perform a literal Black Mass to worship the Devil. Simply look in the mirror and whisper, “I am a god.”

The Grammy’s, in that sense, have been a bastion of Satanic ritual for decades. Hedonism, Paganism, and Satanism are mostly all sides of the same coin and rewards season in Hollywood, specifically the Grammy’s, has become a once-a-year ritual of worship that slips from naturalism to hedonism to Satanism in the blink of an eye.

But don’t take my word for it, CBS allegedly tweeted as much before the Grammy’s:

How quickly we forget that the last ten years have seen a steady increase of Satanic boldness at the Grammy’s. Smith’s performance was not new or edgy, it was simply more in a pattern of self-worship from the power brokers of the entertainment industry.

In 2012, Nicki Manaj performed a mock exorcism on stage[x]. The Washington Post was shocked.  But the Post lauded Smith and Petras’ performance of Unholy only a decade later[xi] as one of the top four performances of the night.

In 2014, Katy Perry performed an enigmatic and dark song called Dark Horse. In the song she emerged from a crystal ball with shadowy figures summoning her to a black altar when a red cross appeared on her chest, she danced with a broom and ended the performance being burnt at the stake.[xii] Seemed a bit on the nose at the time, but 2023 takes the cake in that regard. This same year the Grammy’s held a mass “wedding ceremony” for gay couples as well, explicitly mocking a church service in the process[xiii].

In 2015, Madonna (who also introduced Smith in 2023) performed a song called Living for Love with background dancers clad in demonic garb[xiv].

In 2017, A pregnant Beyoncé performed what looked like an ode to her goddess-self giving birth to a child. But, again, you do not have to take my word for it[xv].

In 2019, a metal band called Ghost won a Grammy. The band is known for its Satanic imagery. Its lead man often dons clothing associated with the Occult and riddled with references to Satan, darkness, upside down crosses and demonic imagery[xvi].  Leading man Tobias Forge says this of their message:

“I think it’s sad that people are wasting their time thinking that we’re bad for people, when actually what we’re really trying to do is make people happy and make people feel good about themselves when they come to our show and have a good time.”

Do what thou wilt, one might say.

2021 and 2022 had similarly eerie performances, one by Post Malone[xvii] in which he was surrounded by darkly hooded monks as he wrestled with the hopelessness he felt in Hollywood’s grips and one by Lil Nas X who performed his song Montero that featured a lap dance on the devil in the music video.

These odes to darkness are not outright Wiccan ritual or Occult sacrifices, but they can often stand in for something just as insidious and more subversive. The point is the destruction of norms, reclaiming of a new morality, and recasting of darkness disguised as light. Make no mistake – the Devil smiles at such displays, not because he is worshipped but because that which is being worshipped is not, in fact, the one true God.

This brings us to the most recent spectacle. At the 2023 Grammy’s, self-proclaimed non-binary performer Sam Smith and transgender performer Kim Petras combined to present the most brazen tribute to modern day Satanism to date, with their presentation of the song Unholy.

Kim (born Tim), a transgender woman who had gender reassignment surgery at the age of 16[xviii] writhed around in a cage guarded by demonic strippers while Sam Smith gyrated with and performed with transgender strippers dressed in demonic costumes.  The whole display lacked subtlety and imagination.  You were seeing, in full display, a desire to embrace darkness for the very fact that reality is offensive to our fleshly desires. We can make our own reality, where gender is a matter of opinion and sexes can change through the miracle of modern medicine. We can choose for ourselves what is good and what is evil and be damned if you disagree.

Petras had this to say about the performance:

“I think a lot of people, honestly, have kind of labeled what I stand for and what Sam stands for as religiously not cool, and I personally grew up wondering about religion and wanting to be a part of it but slowly realizing it didn’t want me to be a part of it… So it’s a take on not being able to choose religion. And not being able to live the way that people might want you to live, because as a trans person I’m already not kind of wanted in religion. So we were doing a take on that and I was kind of hell-keeper Kim.”[xix]

There is a lot to break down in this quote.  It gives a glimpse into the slippery slope from individual autonomy to the embrace of evil itself. At first glance one might empathize with the apparent ostracization of Petras, but the admission here is not that religion would not have him, it is that he would not have religion. Whatever god Petras would willingly serve must first bend the knee at his own self-actualization.

The Christian life, though, is about dying to self and rising with Christ, remade, a new creation (Matt. 16:24-26, Rom 12:1-3; 1 Cor. 6:19-20) and being transformed into obedience to truth which is Jesus himself. The problem was not that Kim could not choose religion, it is that religion, Christianity in particular, required a change in identity for Kim.  It meant not looking inward for validation hope, or truth but looking upward.

Ironically, Kim’s own performance shows the truth of his commitment, the self-actualization into radical autonomy left him writhing in a cage, unfree, trapped in Hell.  What promises as freedom is bondage but what looks like constraint is freedom (John 8:32; 10:10). Had Kim or Sam chosen Jesus they might find that they would not need to seek applause and shock to remain relevant, whole and fulfilled. Our culture’s promise that sexual pleasure is the highest pursuit, and victimhood the highest virtue only leads to hopelessness and irrelevance.

Is it worth it in the long run?

“Age does not matter to me… I’m never going to stop fully clubbing and loving gay clubs and going to them. That’s just who I am.”[xx]

Kim Petras

But what about when age does matter?  What about when the fame fades? What then?

If the Enemy can keep us focused on the here and now rather than the there and then he has won half the battle. This game is endless, exhausting, and boring all at the same time. Always having to look for the next shocking display, the next transgressive cause to burn down the norms of history. It seems like a high calling because of the cultural plaudits, but it is meaningless and empty of value. There’s a reason Madonna, at 64, can’t let go of her 1980s self and must always insert herself into these moments.

The culture of transgression is fleeting, being a sex symbol only lasts for a few years before you are cast aside for the next and hottest new thing. The worship of self, pleasure, and identity only gives meaning for a short time, but it is long enough to waste a lifetime. Satan knows this and his desire to amplify this meaningless self-worship has eternal consequences.

So, what is the Christian’s response to things like this?

First, I believe our role is to expose the darkness for what it is (John 1:5) and to avoid loving what it stands for (1 John 2:15) but we must also pray for those that are mired in it to be exposed to the light. May they find true hope, peace, and purpose. I do not hate Sam Smith or Kim Petras, on the contrary, I love them deeply.  I want them to know and understand the deep and abiding love that Christ has for them. I want them to experience a rest from their pursuit of relevance, acceptance, fame, and pleasure.

Our goal should be similar to what Jesus revealed to Paul as he was sent among the hedonistic and pagan nations of the gentiles:

“…To open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me (Acts:26:18).”

We must recognize, as Paul did, that the world is, whether they realize it or not, under the power of Satan. This sort of darkness, this worship of self, certainly opens individuals and cultures up to the influence of the spiritual realm. Satan is the prince of this world (Eph. 2:1-2) and they serve him whether they realize it or not.  The enemy, however, is not Sam Smith or Kim Petras but the dark and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12).

We cannot be naïve about these things, but we also must not overreact out of fear either. We must be sober-minded and watchful (1 Peter 5:8) prepared to engage with the boldness of love and truth.

In the end though, we must remember that Satan’s greatest weapon against the church is not a dark cultural display at the Grammy’s but in false gospels, fear, and ineffectiveness. So while we ought to be aware of these things, we should be more concerned about our own churches, neighborhoods, and Bible studies lest we get distracted by things like the Grammy’s at the expense of real and true discipleship.

Footnotes

[i] https://www.insider.com/most-shocking-moments-grammys-history#long-before-ariana-grande-sang-god-is-a-woman-helen-reddy-made-that-proclamation-during-her-1973-acceptance-speech-1

[ii] https://variety.com/2023/music/news/sam-smith-kim-petras-unholy-grammys-1235510990/

[iii]  https://www.billboard.com/music/awards/kim-petras-2023-grammys-judge-less-speech-1235213820/

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/of-truth-and-empathy/

[v] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anton-LaVey

[vi]  Aleister-Crowley-s-Satanism.pdf

[vii] https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/satanism

[viii] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123653.The_Book_of_the_Law

[ix] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Paradise-Lost-epic-poem-by-Milton

[x] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/click-track/post/grammys-2012-the-last-exorcism-of-nicki-minaj-what-went-wrong-and-what-almost-went-right/2012/02/13/gIQAzAxMBR_blog.html

[xi] https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/02/05/grammy-awards/

[xii]  https://youtu.be/jDuL_3TsdZE

[xiii] https://variety.com/2014/music/news/madonna-marries-gay-couples-at-the-grammys-2-1201072143/

[xiv] https://www.salon.com/2015/02/09/see_madonnas_demonic_grammy_performance_of_living_for_love/

[xv] https://www.self.com/story/beyonce-grammys-2017

[xvi] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/grammy-nominated-metal-band-ghost-addresses-satanic-accusations-music-styles-promote-way-worse-lifestyle-175537647.html

[xvii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNBDjJosK74

[xviii] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/9832006/kim-petras-transition-clarity-fame/

[xix] https://variety.com/2023/music/news/ted-cruz-slams-sam-smith-kim-petras-grammys-evil-performance-1235514438/

[xx] https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/kim-petras-talks-religion-trans-community-ahead-grammys-96847838

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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/3S1lyMc

/by