Culture Archives - Page 5 of 13

Tag Archive for: Culture

When Hollywood gets God and virtue right

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Imagine if there were a fun way to raise your kid’s interest in God while imparting some of the most important virtues every Christian parent wants their children to learn. There is. You can use an unlikely source that will help you get your point across without you sounding all “preachy.”

Pollster George Barna found that young people get their theology more from movies than the pulpit. So why not use the power of Hollywood to give them good theology where you can? Stories inspire and instruct more vividly than commands, which is one reason why Jesus not only gave commands but also told stories.

Yes, I know. Unlike Jesus, Hollywood’s stories often glorify much that is immoral. But Hollywood’s most successful movies often tell inspiring stories of sacrifice that borrow from the greatest story ever told. These movies also provide biblical life lessons, even movies not made by believers.

Here are a few kid-friendly examples.

If you want your kids to have the courage to stand for the truth even when the world is against them, watch any movie with Captain America. Steve Rogers (a.ka. Captain America) is the poster child for what we look for in a hero. He’s the leader of the Avengers despite clearly being outclassed in power by most of the other heroes on the team. His most important trait is that he is morally incorruptible — a trait he had even when he was just a scrawny kid who was too small to enlist in the Army in World War II. Once his mind is made up about what the right thing to do is, nothing will stop him. The guy is even willing to fight the evil supervillain Thanos and his entire army in Avengers: Endgame BY HIMSELF.

If you have kids who tend to impulsively follow their hearts, look at the moral progression of Iron Man. He starts off as a selfish playboy but is transformed into a hero who eventually sacrifices himself to save the world. Tony’s transformation requires him to stop impulsively following his heart, as the culture promotes, and to start guarding his heart as the Bible commands (Pr. 4:23). This is beautifully illustrated by the device implanted in Tony’s chest that is literally guarding his heart from encroaching shrapnel. When Tony guards his heart from distractions and his own selfish desires, he can focus on what’s really important — the responsibilities he has to others.

If your child isn’t the most popular or strongest kid in school, watch The Lord of the Rings. The heroes of Tolkien’s Fantasy Masterpiece are those who are weakest physically but the strongest morally. Sam and Frodo are three-foot hobbits who are dwarfed by everyone else. But weakness turns out to be a strength for them because it gives them the humility to ask for help. Tolkien is highlighting the biblical truth that when you are weak you are strong because when you are weak you rely on God for help (2 Cor. 12:10). Of course, Tolkien intended for The Lord of the Rings series to present a Christian worldview — including the fact that there is a God who often works behind the scenes — so watching the series will be rich theologically and morally in many other ways as well.

If you want your kids to see the beauty of grace, watch Wonder Woman. In her first feature-length movie, Wonder Woman spares an evil war criminal who is kneeling in repentance even though she is being egged on to kill this war criminal by her opponent Ares who wants to kill everyone because he thinks human beings do too much evil. Ares screams at Wonder Woman that people “don’t deserve your protection!”

But Wonder Woman responds, “It’s not about deserve; it’s about what you believe. And I believe in love.”

That reflects what God believes and did for us. God loves so much that He sent His only son to take our punishment so when we believe in Jesus we will not get what we deserve — we will not get paid back for the evil we’ve done — we will get grace, love, and eternal life.

It’s not just the movie franchises of Captain America, Iron Man, The Lord of the Rings, and Wonder Womanthat can help parents reinforce Christian truths and virtues. So do other franchises such as Star Wars, Superman,Batman,andothersas we show in our new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

Your kids are probably watching those movies anyway (if not, they are hearing about them from their friends or online). So why not use the aspects of these films that convey truth and virtue to reinforce those things in your kids? Knowing these movies will also give them launch points to direct their friends toward Christ. Knowing them can help you do the same with your friends. And the best thing about all of this is that having movie night is often a lot more fun and effective than getting all “preachy.”

Moloch: Bruised but not Defeated

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

For decades our country has been mired by a decision that enshrined the sacrifice of human babies to the god of Moloch (also known as Molech). You might know this practice by its current moniker, abortion, but the practice is essentially the same. Sacrificing our children on the altar of prosperity is a tail as old as human civilization. Instead of molten hands the altar is often a Planned Parenthood operating table.

We have chosen, as a nation, to ignore the obvious humanity of the infant in utero and have embraced the lie that sex is a right but having children as a result is anathema. That is, unless you want the baby.

In 1973, possibly the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court was handed down in Roe v. Wade. I do not mean worst in merely the moral sense, though it is that, but also the legal sense. Finding the right to an abortion in the constitution took mental and philosophical gymnastics that would make Simone Biles jealous.[1] If you don’t believe me, perhaps you would believe Ruth Bader Ginsberg, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, when she said of the decision in 1992, “Doctrinal limbs too quickly shaped… may prove unstable.”[2]

This decision enshrined the murder of innocent children and the racially motivated eugenics of Margaret Sanger,[3] the founder of Planned Parenthood. If there is a social justice issue worth fighting, it is this one. Abortion effects minority communities more than any other in our society, in fact, over 40% of all abortions since 1973 were people of color.[4]

For decades this decision has meant the belittling of pre-born life, the slaughter of millions of babies, and the attempted genocide of the African American people. It is, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt and heinous failings in our country’s history. The decision to abort has been called a “woman’s right to choose.” Representative Ilhan Omar tweeted that “the Republican party supports forcing women to give birth against their will,” on May 3^rd 2022.

The euphemistic language is by design, sure a woman might give birth against her will (unless the sex was consensual), but the baby is killed against his/her will every time. Which is worse? Saying the reality engenders discomfort. In reality “women’s reproductive rights” is simply a cover for worship of self and a desire for prosperity by sacrificing a life on the altar of convenience. The ease of life was always the goal of sacrifice to Moloch, abundant harvests were promised as the babies were laid on the glowing hot hands of the idol. “Give us prosperity because we give you our first-born children” has turned to “give us prosperity as we suck my preborn child lifelessly from the womb.”[5] Life will be easier for everyone if this child does not exist. Interestingly enough, I notice the child never has a say.

When pro-abortion advocates feel they are losing ground they often use extreme examples like rape or incest to insist that abortion must be kept legal if only for these cases. Only 1% of abortion cases are because of rape and even fewer are because of incest[6]. This Red Herring has proven effective, but it should not be. When granted the exception, it becomes obvious that limiting abortion to only cases of rape and incest would never be acceptable. The goal of this objection is to get the pro-life advocate to admit that the baby is not a real baby. If you are willing to allow a pre-born child to be killed due to a crime, then what is the point of limiting the act to only those that are victims of a crime. A life is a life is it not? In this argument they concede the point, not the other way around. However, murdering an innocent because he/she reminds you of a horrific crime you suffered is not moral. Committing a second evil does not negate the first evil committed. But most pro-lifers are willing to grant the exception. Why? It is not because they believe the personhood changes based on the condition of conception, but because when faced with the prospect that such a compromise might save 99% of babies that would otherwise be killed we say this, “It is not perfect, but it is a start.”

Other objections are similarly shallow. “Why force a woman who already has children to carry another child and make her life harder?” Perhaps because murder is never an excuse to make life easier, and then we pretend like adoption is not an option. Or, “wouldn’t it be better to have never been born than for a child to be born in abject poverty?” This is assuming the child will never amount to anything and, logically, we might as well exterminate all drug addicts and homeless people then because… wouldn’t it be better for them in the long run to simply be dead? All of these are Red Herrings, and houses of cars that easily crumble under slight scrutiny, but they are not meant to stand, they are meant to obfuscate by putting the pro-life person on the defense having to explain the position. And we often fall for it.

For many years overturning Roe v. Wade seemed like a political pipe dream. Something always talked about but never coming to fruition. Recently, notable theologian and pastor Tim Keller exemplified this thought with a twitter thread that seemed to indicate such a position:

While I disagree with Keller on many of his points here, I believe his position is one that took into account the pipe dream that was Roe v. Wade being overturned.

But now, all of that has changed. An unprecedented leak of a drafted Supreme Court decision to Politico[7] has forced many to recognize the pipe dream might become reality. But what does the accomplishment of this pipe dream do?

Well, contrary to popular belief on the left, the decision would not make abortion illegal on a federal level. Though, to be honest, I wish it did. All it will do is remove abortion as a “right” enumerated by the constitution under the guise of privacy. This would send the decision on whether to make abortion legal or not to individual states. All in all, it would only make it a little harder to get an abortion. Some states would maintain their laws while others would make abortion illegal. States already have the purview to put limitations on abortion after the first trimester.

However, this is a necessary first step in ending the idolatry of self and sex without consequences in our society. But, when the god of Moloch is challenge, his worshippers fight back. Death threats are sure to make their way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to dissuade the justices from maintaining their ruling. Let us hope that threat is where it stops. Regardless, the clear objective of the leak is to effect the decision of the courts in more than one way.

Clearly, this leak is an effort to pressure the House and Senate to do something the left has wanted them to do for some time now: end the filibuster, and pack the supreme court and codify Roe as law. This leak makes that desire more urgent and puts pressure on middle of the road Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to toe the party line and get the deal done. This is a delicate time in our nation’s history, and, in particular, our Republic. As of this writing members of congress are already setting the stage:

We would be mistaken, as believers, to think that this is a death knell to the abhorrent practice of abortion even if the decision comes out as the leak indicates it will. Abortion will still be practiced in many states and that, unfortunately, will not change.

While abortion has been made into a political and human rights issue (and it is), it is so much more than that to the Christian. While abortion is a clear evil in our society, and in culture at large, it is representative of a larger issue in society – the worship of self.

Self-actualization, self-identity, self-care, self-improvement, self-indulgence. Self, self, self, self, self.

We are a me-oriented society and thus, the idea that a person cannot choose for herself whether or not to kill another human being to ease the burdens of life is anathema. This is not simply about a culture war, this is a war concerning the gospel. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers of this day and the worshippers of Moloch will not relinquish their grip easily.[8]

Plenty of states will harden their hearts and continue to come down with extreme legislation allowing abortion up to and possibly after birth[9]. This is not the end of the war, it is only a battle.

If we view this issue as primarily political, we miss the forest for the trees. We ought to be engaged in politics (see: Separation of Church and State Deception), but we must not make politics an end unto themselves. This has always been and will always be about the gospel, about being salt and light! What we will see in the coming days will be tantamount to spiritual revolution for the ardent Molochites. We ought not wilt in the periphery but stand on the hill. The truth, and life, is on our side. Compromising on murder for the sake of peace is not progress, it is surrender.

The worshippers of Moloch did not go quietly in the night during Israel’s time and the 21st century version will not go quietly into the night either.

To be clear, not everyone who is pro-choice is serving Moloch, but make no mistake, for the passionate abortion-at-all-costs radicals this is more about worship than it is about supposed rights. But don’t take my word for it:

“The right to an abortion is sacred.” This is sacramental language. And this avenue of worship has taken many forms throughout history, from Moloch, to Baal, to Baphomet, to the cult of self, whatever the Enemy can offer as a counterfeit to the real worship of God almighty in a given culture he will. Different times, different cultures, same methodology. Why fix what isn’t broken? The schemes of the devil are simple yet effective.

The promise is alluring, the worship is self-gratifying, and the outrage is intoxicating. But the end, as always, is death and misery, but most do not even recognize they are participating in the worship of darkness. They think they are enlightened humanists and many do not believe in the spiritual at all and that is just the way the Enemy wants it. Not many would knowingly bend a knee to Satan but if he can get them to worship the created rather than the creator it is just as well.

So what do we do?

Pray – A lot.

Keep the five justices of the Supreme Court and, in particular, members of Congress in your prayers continuously. Specifically pray for Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito to remain safe and pray for the hearts and minds of the dissenting justices to be softened. Pray also for safety in our nation. Pray for an opportunity for the gospel to be heard. Pray that pro-life people, such as myself, will stand for life but also for the care of each person in the name of Christ. Pray that pastors and theologians, such as Tim Keller and many others, with a wide reach will find confidence and courage. This could be an inflection point in our nation’s history, pray that it is not squandered.

Do not fight the lies of Satan with half-truths and do not give ground. Be courageous. The darkness always hates the light but its power is fraudulent and without substance.

And finally, stay heartened, faithful, and committed to the cause of Christ!

[1] https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3681&context=mlr

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

[3] https://www.frc.org/op-eds/margaret-sanger-racist-eugenicist-extraordinaire

[4] https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/01/28/franks-high-abortion-rate-strikes-blow-at-black-community/

[5] https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

[6]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

[7] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

[8] Ephesians 6:12

[9] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html

The religion of the Force (book excerpt)

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.15″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.15″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.15″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.15.1″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]

By Frank Turek and Frank Zachary Turek

The Star Wars series comprises eleven wonderful movies (some more wonderful than others) that, by design, are infused with overtly religious issues.

George Lucas said, “I put the Force into the movies in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people — more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system.”

He admits that he wants to get young people to at least think about the big questions in life: “Is there a God? What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God feel like? How do we relate to God? Just getting young people to think at that level is what I’ve been trying to do in the films.”

Not bad for Hollywood! But what kind of answers do the movies provide to viewers, and how do they compare to Christianity?

Lucas claims he’s not trying to direct viewers to definite answers. “What eventual manifestation that takes place in terms of how they describe their God, what form their faith takes, is not the point of the movie.”[1]

Of course, it was unavoidable that his movie would depict a specific kind of worldview with its own view of god. The Force isn’t a Christian view of God. The god of Star Wars is closest to the god of pantheism — it is omnipresent and binds the universe together, but the Force makes no moral demands on its users.

Moral demands are, of course, part of Christianity, which often uses the same light-versus-darkness language found in Star Wars. God calls us to be in the light, as He is (1 John 1:7). Those who are in sin are depicted as being in darkness, while those who have accepted Christ as their Savior are in the light of the Lord. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes:

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:8–11

This idea of affiliating oneself with the light separates Christianity from any type of Force-based religion in a big way. The Force itself is quite clearly neutral — equally accessible to both sides and not preferring one over the other. Since the Force is not personal, it can’t command anyone to do good with its power.

In this way, pantheism is a lot like atheism. Whether you call nature “the Force” or simply matter and energy, you have no grounds for objective morality. Impersonal nature has no authority or capacity to tell you or anyone what to do.

Yet there is morality throughout the Star Wars series. Although the Force is technically neutral, George Lucas admits Star Wars is a “morality play.” In fact, virtually all good stories, including all superhero movies, are morality plays. There are always good guys and bad guys. Evil always needs to be defeated, which presupposes that there is an objective standard of good we ought to follow. An objective standard of good that all humans are obligated to follow can only exist if a personal God exists.

Since the Star Wars universe doesn’t have a personal God, how is morality justified in the movies? It isn’t. But that’s OK. They’re movies. Not everything has to be justified or make sense. The Force, like Harry Potter’s magic, isn’t meant to be grounded in reality. It’s science-fiction. Just like we don’t see people flying on broomsticks, we don’t see people wielding lightsabers or moving spaceships around with their minds.

While Lucas claims the Force is morally neutral, the audience isn’t. Because God has written the Moral Law on our hearts, we intuitively and immediately know that the Jedi are the heroes of the story and that the light side is morally better than the dark side.

The repeated goal of “balance” in the Force is another difference between the Force of Star Wars and the God of Christianity. “The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side,” said George Lucas. “Those sides are designed around compassion and greed — we all have those two sides of us — and we have to make sure that those two sides of us are in balance.”

This is really an odd statement to make.[2] Do we really want a “balance” between compassion and greed or between other forms of good and evil? Can you imagine your grandma telling you that as long as you do just as many nice things to the little boy next door, you can do all the bad things to him you want? Christians (and all people) should be fighting to eradicate evil completely, not balance it with good.

Furthermore, contrary to the Force of Star Wars, God and Satan are not “in balance,” as if they are equal and opposite forces. As we saw in the introduction, God is the one sovereign power, and all other creatures derive their power from Him. Just as evil cannot exist without good, Satan cannot exist without God. Neither can the angels and demons. Neither can we.

C. S. Lewis put it well, “Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.”[3]

The Christian concept of faith is also different from the religion of the Force. In Star Wars,faith means not trusting your senses, but your feelings. It’s why Obi-Wan prompted Luke to turn off his targeting computer and trust his feelings.

Christianity is exactly the opposite. Faith is trusting in what you have good reasons to believe is true, and the primary way you get those reasons is by using your senses. Once you’ve discovered those reasons, you don’t trust your feelings when they contradict the facts. Feelings are fickle and subject to changing emotions. Feelings change, but facts don’t.

In Star Wars, the more faith you have, the more power you have. That’s why Yoda can lift the spaceship out of the mud on Dagobah while Luke cannot. But that’s not the way the real world works.

Imagine you and your friend get on a flight to Hawaii. If you totally trust the pilots but your friend is scared to death (your faith is strong but his is weak), does that mean you’ll get there but he’ll crash? Of course not. Once he’s on the plane, the strength of his faith isn’t the issue. The skill of the pilots is. It’s the same in Christianity. It’s not the amount of faith that has power — the faith of a mustard seed is enough. Instead, power lies in who you put your faith in. Jesus, not humanity, is the source of our power.

Taken from Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek and Zach Turek. Copyright ©2022. Used by permission of NavPress. All rights reserved. Represented by Tyndale House Publishers, a Division of Tyndale House Ministries.

Notes

[1] These quotes are from an interview Bill Moyers conducted with George Lucas in 1999, the transcripts of which are available here and here.

[2] Some may claim that by “balance” Lucas means the moderation between extremes that pantheists often advocate (signified by the yin and yang symbol). But if that’s the case, why would he claim we should want compassion and greed to be in balance?

[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: MacMillan, 1952), 50–51.

3 Practical Steps to Help Build Your Kids’ Immunity to Anti-Christian Ideas

Apologetics for Parents

By Alisa Childers

When my daughter Dyllan was a toddler, I exercised quite regularly at the YMCA. (And by “exercised,” I mean that I read a book on the stationary bike and pedaled as slowly as possible while I enjoyed an hour of free childcare. Not gonna lie.) One day when I picked her up from the kid’s room, the childcare worker pulled out the unopened granola bar I had put in Dyllan’s bag, handed it to me, and said, “We can’t give this to her because it contains peanuts. We don’t allow anything with peanuts into the childcare area.” I admit I was a bit surprised because it wasn’t something I had given much thought to. But I quickly learned that there was almost nothing parents feared more in 2010 than the dreaded peanut.

Of course, peanut allergies are very real. In their book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt reported that before the mid-1990s, peanut allergies were extremely rare in American children. However, by 2008, fourteen out of every thousand kids had developed peanut allergies. No one knew why there was such a drastic increase until an authoritative study was released in 2015. It was discovered that many kids were developing peanut allergies because their parents avoided giving them peanuts. The study revealed that introducing peanut products to infants with a high risk for allergies actually reduced their chances of developing a peanut allergy by a whopping 81%. In other words, giving peanut products to infants caused their immune systems to respond and build up a tolerance.

Our kids have amazing bodies that react to bacteria, parasites—and yes, peanuts—with an immune response that teaches their system to adapt and fight off future threats to their health.

In the same way, I believe our kids have spiritual immune systems.

Several years ago, I was a participant in a study and discussion group about Christianity. This was the class that challenged my faith intellectually and I’ve told that story here. One day, the subject of Adam and Eve came up and it was asked, “Does anyone still believe they were actual people?” I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I was entirely naive when it came to this subject. Even as an adult, I thought the literal existence of Adam and Eve was something all professing Christians believed in. Chalk it up to the Evangelical bubble I grew up in or the fact that most of my life happened before the invention of the internet. But the question threw me because I had no idea how to answer.

Until that moment, I didn’t even know it was a question. I had zero immunity.

This was simply one of many skeptical claims raised against historic Christianity that snowballed together to send me into a dark time of doubt. I’ve often replayed that moment in my mind and imagined a different scenario. What if I had been aware of this question from childhood? What if I had already thought it through? What if when I read the Genesis account of creation, someone had told me, “Hey, some people don’t think Adam and Eve really existed. Let’s think about what the Bible says about it, what scientific evidence shows, and what that would mean for the gospel.“

If my spiritual immune system had been strengthened in this way, hearing this question as an adult would have been no big deal. It wouldn’t have shaken my faith one bit. I would have simply engaged in that conversation intelligently, without fear or doubt.

Other than teaching our kids the basics of the Christian faith, there are many practical steps we can take to help bolster their spiritual immune systems. Here are three to start with:

1. Read the Bible with your kids, and don’t skip the hard stuff.

By “don’t skip the hard stuff,” I certainly don’t mean you should freak your kids out right before bed by reading about the Levite hacking his concubine to pieces in Judges 19, or Samson getting his eyes gouged out in Judges 16. Obviously, there is an age-appropriate way to introduce biblical stories to our kids. What I mean by “don’t skip the hard stuff,” is that reading stories and accounts that skeptics typically challenge is a great way to inoculate our kids against their false ideas.

For example, when my daughter was about seven, we read through Genesis together. In chapter 26, we read the story of Isaac lying to the Philistines. He told them his wife Rebekah was his sister, fearing that someone might kill him in order to marry her. I said to my daughter, “Did you know that some people think this story is made up because it’s so similar to what Isaac’s dad Abraham did twice before? What do you think about that?” We had a great conversation about how it would make perfect sense for Isaac to repeat his father’s lie, because there seemed to be no major consequences for doing so. In fact, in both cases, Abraham left richer than he came. We also looked at the biblical theme of sons tending to repeat their father’s sins. After we talked, it all made sense. And now my daughter won’t be caught off-guard should she hear that skeptical claim in the future.

A great resource to help with this is The Apologetics Study Bible. As you read through the Bible, it footnotes the verses that skeptics typically challenge, and offers intelligent and credible responses you can talk through with your kids!

2. Expose your kids to atheism.

As a parent, it can be scary to intentionally tell your kids all the reasons why atheists reject Christianity. Based on her experience teaching apologetics to Christian parents, my friend Natasha Crain noted that many parents don’t want to risk leading their kids astray by introducing atheist arguments. But she rightly points out that all of our kids will inevitably hear these ideas. She wrote:

The only choice you have as a parent is if they’ll hear them first from you—in an environment where they’ll have your guidance readily available—or if they’ll hear them first from nonbelievers—in an environment where they’ll be processing what they hear on their own.

Brett Kunkle compares exposure to atheist ideas with teaching his kids to surf. In this video, he explains that as a parent, you wouldn’t throw your kid into the ocean to surf big waves before you teach them basics like swimming and how to handle smaller waves. Watch below:

Getting our kids used to the “smaller waves” of atheism can be a great way to prepare them to encounter the “big waves” when they are out on their own.

3. Expose your kids to false gospels and other religions.

Just like it’s important to expose our kids to atheist ideas, it’s equally important to expose them to counterfeit gospels—which almost always masquerade as authentic Christianity. It’s been said that the best lies contain the most truth. This is why false gospels can be so tricky to discern. . .they contain so much truth. They will often emphasize Jesus, use the right lingo, and even appeal to the Bible to back up their claims. Explaining the differences between authentic Christianity and Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the prosperity gospel, or progressive Christianity will prepare our kids to interact with their ideas and see through the deceptions they espouse.

Another important step is talking with our kids about what people of other religious faiths believe about God, Jesus, and the nature of reality. Although they agree on some points, every world religion contradicts the others at a fundamental level. Logically, they can’t all be true. This is a great opportunity to expose the contradictions and talk with our kids about why Christianity is true and best explains reality.

Who would have thought that giving a baby a tiny bit of peanut butter could potentially save his life? In the same way, giving our kids tiny bits of anti-Christian ideas and allowing them to process these questions within the safety and guidance of our care could have a lasting impact on their future spiritual lives.

Other practical resources:

For years, Brett Kunkle has offered theological training for teenagers and facilitated trips to Utah to interact with Mormons. When I interviewed him on my podcast, he reported that the impact of these trips has been tremendous in the lives of young people, motivating them to study theology and apologetics on their own. He now offers trips to the Berkeley college campus where Christian kids can share the gospel and interact with atheists and skeptics. Find out more at www.maventruth.com.

Another ministry doing great work in this area is Jonathan Morrow and Impact 360. Every summer, they offer experiences in which Christian teenagers are trained in leadership, apologetics, and theology after which they are given real-world experiences to test their knowledge. They visit Buddhist and Mormon temples, meet atheists, and more. Find out more at www.impact360institute.org and listen to Jonathan’s interview on my podcast.

If you want to be intentional about this, pick up Natasha Crain’s book Talking with Your Kids about God: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have, and follow Natasha’s blog for more great tips. Or pick up J. Warner Wallace’s trio of kids’ books (1, 2, and 3) that explore everything from the existence of God to the truthfulness of Christianity.

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 3)

Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

As we enter into the final section of critiquing the objections to the orthodox view of homosexual activity as a sin, it is important to note, again, why I am spending such a significant amount of time on these particular points. The rallying cry for the liberal theologian has been grace, mercy and love, but as I established in part one (HERE), I believe that true grace, mercy and love must be based on the Truth established in God’s word. In order to have proper compassion we can not entertain falsehood.

We intrinsically know this to be true. If your child believes with all his heart that he can fly and climbs to the top of your house to prove it do you let him jump because it is unloving or unmerciful to tell him he’s wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to keep him from jumping even if it makes him cry, get angry, or hate you? A good parent does not even need to consider the problem. The correct response to the situation is natural.

In the same way, we must address sinful habits in our own lives and untruths in the world. We cannot be compassionate to the child by allowing him to plummet to his death and we cannot be compassionate to fellow believers as we watch them plunge their lives into unrepentant sin. That would be unloving. So we must first establish what is true and then we can place true empathy and compassion on top of that foundation.

The following are just a sampling of other objections I have interacted with in my time in ministry. I believe we should answer each with grace and truth and any subsequent argument ought to be handled the same way. I have attempted to do so here. I pray to God that he has empowered me to succeed in that endeavor. I answered one of the more technical objections in last week’s article that you can access by clicking here.

Homosexuality is just as much a sin as eating Shellfish in the Bible

This argument ignores New Testament scriptures on the topic completely, it is also incredibly flawed theologically and is primarily used only as an argument with which to denigrate those of the faith as inconsistent or hypocritical.

This, of course, is an argument that Christians still eat shrimp and mussels but will not agree that the homosexual act is good/right even though both come from the same book of the Bible. In Leviticus 11 we find that God forbids the consumption of shellfish to his people, likewise, just seven chapters later in Leviticus 18 God forbids men to lie with men and women to lie with women going to far as to call the act an abomination.

The difference in language of these two things is paramount to understand. While the Hebrews are to detest shellfish, they are not ordered to detest those who consume shellfish, just the shellfish itself. Consuming shellfish is detestable, but it is not an “abomination” but God does call sodomy (homosexuality) an abomination. We also find that God removes food restrictions from the believer (as well as eternal restrictions of faith!) to Peter in Acts 10:9-16, but God does not do the same thing for homosexuality.

Perhaps some might try to include homosexuality in the interpretation of Acts 10, however, the early church certainly did not. It seems that Peter and other apostles saw this vision as a twofold allowance of food consumption and God bringing salvation to the gentiles without forcing the gentiles to convert first to Judaism.

Furthermore, God had clearly defined rules for his chosen nation to set themselves apart from those around them. Simply put, part of the prohibitions in the Old Testament were simply made to distinguish God’s chosen people from the gentile nations around them. It is fair (and safe) to assume that God’s prohibition on clearly cultural differences (consuming shellfish, wearing certain fabrics, circumcision etc.) would dissolve over time as he ushered in the church age and Jesus became the fulfillment of what those laws were intended to convey, whereas his prohibition on moral issues (murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) would not change, because they are based on His character and His design for life, not simply on setting a nation apart for himself. There is, believe it or not, a hierarchical structure to the law of God.

Thus Leviticus 18 carries a much more relevant prohibition than Leviticus 11 because one has to do with God’s character and the other with establishing the theocracy of Israel specifically. Much has been written on this topic and I cover it only sparingly here but for a more comprehensive look at the subject the book The End of the Law by Jason Meyer is a good resource.[1]

Homosexual was not even a word in the Bible until 1946

We covered a bit of this argument in part 2, but will look at the lay argument here. Homosexual was not a word in the English dictionary until the late 19^th century, first appearing in the English dictionary in 1892. The term was coined by German psychologists in the 1860s in reference to the act of same-sex sexual relationships. Bible translations tend to run behind common vernacular by a significant time gap, thus, the fact that the first use of homosexual in an English Bible was in the mid-40s should not be a significant surprise to anyone if they honestly follow the linguistic history of scriptural translations.

Prior to the 40s the word that is translated as homosexual likely would have been translated as Sodomite or Sexually-Immoral. In fact, as we found last week, I believe those are still better translations than homosexual in many cases since they cover a broader range of sexual immorality rather than simply pointing to a homosexual relationship. However, to say that the word homosexual was not in the Bible until 1946 and that therefore it is a recent addition to the Bible is disingenuous on its face. The intent of the passages was clear prior to the 40s and helped to form the decision to insert the word in the translation history after the 40s. The interpretive history of these passages lent credence to the use of the word initially and, while it is not the best translation currently, I do not believe it to be a poor translation either, though, given the current cultural context of identity, I would still like there to be clarity in translation towards behavior and not simply attraction. My problem with the translation in general is that it is making an interpretive decision for the reader rather than simply translating the word, and this means that the narrowing of meaning could leave out important sin issues such as pedophilia, rape, cohabitation and more.

God Did Not Make a Mistake when He created Me

In fact, God did not make a mistake when he created anyone. However, to continue on the theme of Romans 1 from last week, we find that being born with a proclivity to a certain action does not necessarily make that action or desire good and right.

Being born as someone with a disposition to addiction would not make becoming addicted to pain killers good or right. In the same way, being born as someone who is highly sexually driven that desires multiple sexual partners does not make acting on those desires right and good.

In my opinion, homosexuality is the same sort of sin, but we have turned the discussion on its head. Making homosexuality a matter of identity rather than behavior did no one any good and we are currently reaping the “rewards” for such a miscalculation.

Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality is part of the fall, both for men and women. In fact, the entire first section of Romans 1-4 seeks to help the Roman church understand the depravity of man and why we need a savior. Romans 1 is not meant to indicate personal behavior, but it is meant to be read in the context of all human history.

If we read Romans 1 correctly, we will not argue and bicker about who was born what way and whether or not homosexuality is a choice. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a natural consequence of the original fall of man. Sin shattered God’s created order and introduced all sorts of behaviors that could be and have been deemed natural, but are, in fact, evil. (I use the word “evil” in the theological sense here – meaning rebellion against God).

No, God did not make a mistake in creating you. Scripture is clear that you are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), but scripture is also clear that you are a fallen human being with a natural bent towards sin that needs to be rescued from yourself and your own passions and desires. Romans 6-8 puts this struggle under the magnifying glass. The transition from death to life is immediate and permanent but it is also a process of understanding where we are broken and where we need to be mended by the Holy Spirit.

And as Paul indicates at the end of chapter 7 the only answer is through Jesus Christ, otherwise we are still under the headship of Adam and thus, in sin, and in death. Which is why having a dual identity is so problematic. This means God can remake only part of who we are, because we have eliminated him from impacting our other identity. It is sequestered off in a dark closet that his renovation crew is not allowed to touch. The exclusivity of Christ is of utmost importance in this discussion, but according to a survey recently conducted on supposed “born again” Christians, thus fundamental doctrine is also under attack. Ultimately compassion without adherence to truth ends up there. It is not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is, in fact, slippery.

So no, God did not make a mistake in allowing any person to be born, but that also does not mean that we are all born perfect either. Two things can be true at once. God can have fearfully and wonderfully made a person and also that person could be irreparably damaged beyond repair with natural bents towards evil and self-destruction unless God intercedes on his/her behalf. All people are worthy of dignity and love because they are image bearers of the Almighty, but all people are also broken image bearers because of sin and must be repaired by their Creator.

I know this, because I am this. No, I am not a homosexual, but I am wickedly depraved. I need a savior, I have one in Jesus. This same savior is available to all who would believe, and he will make them a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) with the ability to find victory over whatever sinful proclivities they may have been born under, because in Jesus we are offered a completely new identity.

A Homosexual in a Committed Consensual Relationship is Fulfilling a Marriage Covenant

This is the last one we will have room for in this section, and it is the easiest and most difficult to answer. The easiest, because I believe that understanding the actual meaning of Romans 1 and the passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy will ultimately lead one to the understanding that marriage can only be, and has only ever been, ordained between a man and woman and the marriage bed (Heb 13:4) must not include two of the same sex.

That said, it is the most difficult to answer because my heart genuinely aches for those that have those homosexual proclivities that desire to have a meaningful long-term relationship and have children and experience all that is good about those relationships. But empathy is all I can offer in that regard because scripture seems to be clear on the issue, and I do not know of a married couple that can (or should) abstain from sexual intercourse in order to maintain a pure relationship. If my answers to the previous two sections are biblically accurate, then the answer to this objection becomes obvious.[2] And as we will see next week, there are many professing gay Christians that agree with this.[3] Some resources are footnoted below.[4]

So what then?

I am sure I have not covered every single TikTok take in the previous sections. I am sure there are many more, but let us move on. What then, is the responsibility of the church? In Part 4 I want to look at a better way of handling these things than what the church has done for the past few generations. I believe the church has, and continues to have, fallen short in ministry to those that struggle in this arena and while I do not have all the answers, I do believe we can start down the path of a better way. One thing the book I mentioned in part 3 does get right is this: I believe the church’s handling of homosexuality has been myopic and graceless for many decades, and this needs to change (and it is changing), but it must change without compromise with the Truth.

References:

[1] https://www.christianbook.com/the-law-mosaic-covenant-pauline-theology/jason-meyer/9780805448429/pd/448429?event=AFF&p=1011693&

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Washed-Waiting-Reflections-Faithfulness-Homosexuality/dp/0310330033

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Born-Again-This-Way-Coming-ebook/dp/B0822YXJTC/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=born+again+this+way&qid=1630075251&s=books&sr=1-1

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sexuality-Gospel-Desire-Relationships/dp/0735290911/ref=sxts_entity_rec_bsx_s_def_r00_t_aufl?cv_ct_cx=Christopher+Yuan&dchild=1&keywords=Christopher+Yuan&pd_rd_i=0735290911&pd_rd_r=16cfa890-064c-4ddb-ab8a-de32677f69d2&pd_rd_w=ye02G&pd_rd_wg=GblHm&pf_rd_p=923d3ad5-e62b-462e-9474-e4d7cf9b91ea&pf_rd_r=TXGCY9NT2B4VYJBZP87J&qid=1630075278&s=books&sr=1-1-795edd5f-cc24-47c7-9173-701523fd4bcf

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 2)

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Josh Klein

Previously, we looked at the dichotomy between what it means to declare homosexual activity a sin and how those who believe in Christian orthodoxy deal with it. We addressed the current cultural movement’s roots and introduced the idea of identity into the argument.

It was necessary to do this so that we can have a strong foundation from which to build the following arguments. We must first know why the liberal theologians seek to glorify homosexuality as an identity to understand why the interpretation of scripture has shifted from condemning obvious sinful behavior to condoning that very same behavior.

If you have not read part one you can do so by clicking here.

The goal of the believer should not be to convince the unbeliever of individual sins, such as homosexuality, but to seek to persuade, with the power of the Holy Spirit, that individual that they themselves are a sinner and in need of God’s saving grace.

But once this person becomes a believer, how does the conversation about homosexuality continue? If they are encouraged to keep this identity in addition to their new identity in Christ we find we have created schizophrenic believers seeking to serve the master of being defined as a homosexual as well as a child of God. This can be and is a miserable existence.

In parts two and three of this series, we will be looking at what liberal theology has sought to do to ease the pain of this transition, and in part four, I will look at offering a better way of dealing with this particular issue to those in line with Christian orthodoxy.

The liberal church has sought to assuage this tension by redefining, reinterpreting, and reengaging with scripture on the topic.

New theology is rarely good theology, and, in my opinion, such is the case in this instance.

The following are but a sampling of the arguments that are making the rounds on TikTok, Instagram, and in the liberal church concerning the LGBTQ+ movement (for the sake of length we will focus only on homosexual activity here). These interpretations are based on a worldview of new tolerance, love, and empathy and are not only damaging to the culture but, and more importantly, are damaging to the Church and to the individuals being snowed under by such sleight of hand theological teaching.

I believe this is the kind of teaching Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 18:6 when he said, “⁶but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

As we go through these arguments it is important to remember that, for the purposes of this article, we are having a discussion with supposed members of the same faith. A different standard is to be used with those outside of the faith (1 Corinthians 5:12).

The exceptions to the historical view of homosexuality in the church come under the moniker of love and acceptance and the scholarship starts with this baseline.

I will be the first to admit that many more educated than myself will come to the studious understanding of homosexuality in scripture that disagrees with my own. That said, I believe that their starting place is to find an exception where there is none. And as the saying goes: If you look hard enough for something you will probably find it. They seem to start with the presupposition that if God is love then certainly, he would not allow those he loves to have such a miserable existence as to live with an identity that is hostile to their creator.

They could be partly right. Our identity as sinners is most assuredly offensive and deeply saddening to God. He did do something about this though, he offered us a new identity in Christ rather than in Adam through Jesus’ death and resurrection on our behalf.

Perhaps now we understand why it is so paramount to understand our identity apart from sexuality to truly embrace the gospel. Jesus does not promise to fix us completely during this life and even guarantees that we will have trouble (1 Cor. 13:10-12; John 16:33). Simply put, this means that whatever identity we have apart from Christ must be sacrificed to be identified with and in Christ.

Liberal theology seeks to solve this problem by moving particular acts of sin to the realm of sacred and thus, to ratify the former identity as God-ordained.

The new theology of acceptance of sin does the trick of turning a thing defined as sin into something else entirely. As we will see, it narrows the scope of sexual sin so that an interpretation of scripture that includes the sexually sinful act of homosexuality or promiscuity is considered too broad.

There are also many simply naïve arguments against the idea of homosexuality as a sin that are easily debunked and explained away with some simple study of the scriptures. We will tackle the most technical objection first, and in next week’s treatment, we will move on to the rest as we close out this four-part series.

Note: When I am referring to homosexuality, I am speaking of the ACT, not the disposition or attraction. I believe that attraction is not a sin in and of itself, but lustful thoughts and sexual activities associated with homosexuality and with heterosexuality (outside of marriage) are biblically defined as sinful activities.

The Greek word translated Homosexual should be translated Pedophile therefore the Bible does not speak against same-sex relationships in the original languages.

Let’s get technical.

This statement makes an argument on translative decisions without regard to the doctrine of sin historically.

There are a few words translated as homosexual in the NASB that could be translated to mean different things. A new book that was set to be released in the summer of 2021 called Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay[1] makes the argument that a mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (along, presumably with the other passages in scripture that translate to homosexual) is what spurred an entire generation to puritanical homophobia. There is even a documentary set to be released about the topic in late 2021.

These are likely the arguments that my friend has seen on TikTok. The question then, should be asked, is homosexuality a sin and why would the word be translated differently in 1946 than it was before?

First, we will tackle the main scripture at hand in this new book. 1 Corinthians 6:9 says this:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”

Incidentally, this same word ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) is used in 1 Timothy 1:10 as well and seems to be a word coined by Paul himself to indicate a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender.

It is a compound Greek word that combines ἄρρην (arrēn), which means “male” or “man” and κοίτη (koy’-tay) which means bed and is often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. So, the word literally means two “men” that are “in bed.”

Commonly, prior to 1946, this term had been translated as Sodomite. Those that wish to glorify homosexual intercourse as an acceptable activity for Christian believers to partake in read deeper into the word and believe that Paul is speaking of the significant and disgusting use of boy-love in the ancient Greek world. It is no secret that many of the Greeks practiced pedophilia (child-love) with young boys as grooming processes for older men.

But this argument fails in multiple respects. First, the argument indicates that the language around the word is transactional, and thus, the sexual act is clearly transactional as well (pointing to the temple prostitution of young men) but that is not the case. The tenses are clearly behavioral, it is towards people engaging in voluntary acts of sex and/or worship. The second problem is that the assumption made that arrēn means boy is simply incorrect. παῖς (pais) is the word for boy, and the word from which we get pedophilia (literally: boy-love). Yes, in Revelation many translations insert the word “child” to clarify the meaning, but this is not inherit in the word. For instance, Revelation 12:13 could (and possibly should) just as well be translated “he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male” without the word child inserted at the end.

The word that Paul coined in these two passages is correctly understood and has been understood throughout history, as a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex regardless of age.

Therefore, I am in favor of the translation reflecting the wide breadth of the word, rather than the narrow scope. Is this passage condemning homosexual sex? Yes. Is it also condemning pedophilia? Yes.

Since Paul is coining the term, it seems he is seeking to create an umbrella for a sexual act that is deemed sinful by God. Many proponents of the pederasty theory indicate that Paul could have used a different term, the problem with this suggestion is twofold. Both common Greek words for man are too generic to indicate what Paul was trying to get across. Anthropos and Anēr can both be used as generic terms for all people. Arrēn, however, cannot be.

The other problem with this theory lies within the context of the Old Testament. There is a “lost in translation” problem for many as they study the Old Testament and the New. They think Paul would have been reading the Hebrew Old Testament. And, he would have, but in his writings, Paul quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). This provides another hurdle for the pederasty theory. In the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22, we find that the term used for male is arrēn and the term used for “lie with” is koitē. It is reasonable to deduce then, that Paul is putting these two words together as a direct result of their being used in the LXX (Greek OT) translation of Leviticus 18. Which would indicate that Paul would believe his readers would be directed back to that passage. And this makes sense seeing as Paul does not explain the newly coined word but believed that his readers would simply understand what he was referencing.

The problem remains though, how to best translate this word in English.

I believe a better translation to use in the situation is Sodomite or go completely concrete with “men have sex with males.” The etymology of which stems from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis. You likely know the story, but here is a summary: God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their pride and arrogance and debased and evil culture. He sends angels to investigate and Lot (Abraham’s nephew) saves them from being ravaged by the locals sexually, he even offered his own daughters to the men of the city (which, by the way, was NOT okay with God either, but I digress) in Genesis 19.

It is at this point that many take sodomy to mean anal rape, but it is not that simple. While the original sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, the consequence of their original sin bore itself out in homosexuality and sexual depravity in general. Sodomy, then, has commonly been seen throughout history as the sexual act done between two people of the same gender.

Sodomy is a much broader and harsher term than Homosexual, and I believe it gets better at the heart of what Paul is speaking to in his letters.

However, one of the things the author of the aforementioned book does is to redefine the word sodomy to mean “sex that is not used for procreative purposes.” However, that has not been the general understanding of sodomy for generations. In fact, currently, Britannica defines Sodomy in four ways – homosexuality, anal intercourse, bestiality, and pedophilia[2].

So, if the better translation of the word in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy would be Sodomite, would that indicate that homosexual behavior is deemed good in God’s eyes? An objective observer would be forced to admit, in my opinion, that it would not, but that it would simply be one of a multitude of sexual behaviors that are deemed sinful according to the nature of God’s word.

The other issue that I have with this argument is that it completely leaves out Leviticus and Romans in consideration. In fact, Romans 1:26-27 is possibly one of the clearest condemnations of homosexual sex in the New Testament.

This gets to the heart of Genesis 19 as well. Many believe that the issue with Genesis 19 was not the homosexual sex, but the implied rape that would take place. However, we find in Romans 1 that this is not entirely the case.

When a culture rejects God and refuses to worship him and him alone, he responds by giving them what they want – their depravity. Romans 1:26-27 indicates that the culmination of the original sin of rejecting God and worshipping the created rather than the creator (I was born this way so it is holy and good could be seen as worshipping the created rather than the creator) comes with both men and women exchanging the created order of sexual relationship with the internal passion and desire for each other. The word used for men in this passage is the same word Paul used to combine with a bed that is translated homosexual in current translations.

In one of his many great literary works C.S. Lewis says this, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it.”[3] I am not using this quote to posit that those that are homosexuals are going to Hell, but to bolster the viewpoint that Romans 1 clearly indicates that self-gratification is the line that leads to rebellion and destruction and homosexual behavior is part of this giving over of God.

This leads us next, to the more popular objections. We will tackle those next week. The reason we are spending two weeks on objections is this: It is important to establish what the truth really is in order to move forward with true compassion, grace, and mercy. The same can be said for understanding any other sinful behavior in our lives. While I will treat these objections academically, I want to take a moment at the end of this week’s article to acknowledge that academic arguments are one thing, and they are important, but dealing with people is something entirely different and of utmost importance. That is why I seek to provide a better way at the end of this four-part series. My goal is to treat the topic with tenderness, respect, and love, but to base all of this on the firm foundation of truth. Stay tuned next week for the final response to what seem to be the most popular objections to calling Homosexual activity a sin.

References

[1] http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/forging-a-sacred-weapon-how-the-bible-became-anti-gay/

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/sodomy

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/16309-there-are-only-two-kinds-of-people-in-the-end

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 1)

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

Do you know the name? I do not know why you would, but Lil Nas X has become a bit of a cultural icon in recent years. He wrote a hit country/hip-hop song in 2019 called “Old Town Road” with country star Billy Ray Cyrus. The success of the hit propelled Lil Nas X into the modern spotlight. The song, and its remix, won him fourteen awards spanning from the Grammys to Kids’ Choice Awards[1].

As a result, Lil Nas X toured the country singing for elementary-age kids and was even quoted as saying young kids were his “core audience”[2] in early 2021.

Why am I writing about Lil Nas X on a Christian website?

Well, this man that vies for the eyes and ears of children recently released a new music video that is anything but “kid-friendly.” In his song Montero, Lil Nas X is seen flirting with the Devil, having the Devil lick his navel, pole dancing to Hell, and then giving Satan a lap dance in the underworld. At the end of the clip, Lil Nas X breaks Satan’s neck and removes his crown, declaring himself the king of Hell (which we know is inaccurate, theologically speaking… Satan does not rule Hell – see Rescuing Hell).

To capitalize off the viral video’s success, Lil Nas X also teamed up with a branding company called MSCHF (a play on the word mischief) to release a pair of Nike-branded shoes (Nike has since sued MSCHF for copyright infringement) dedicated to Satan[3].

Lil Nas X also happens to be a gay man. Which would not even be on the top list of problems with the aforementioned publicity stunt, but since Lil Nas X used his upbringing as a catalyst for the release of the new song and video, it is pertinent to the conversation[4].

This article, though, is not about Lil Nas X, or Satan shoes, or the increasing leftist dogma being thrust upon our children.

I wanted to look at the core issue around Lil Nas X’s song, and a core issue going on in Evangelical circles for the past decade-plus.

Homosexuality.

A few weeks ago, I got a text from a young person concerning this very subject:

“I want to do research into God’s view on homosexuality because I’ve been seeing a lot of different takes on TikTok and Instagram and such but it could be heresy or misinterpretation or something else and I want to find out for myself.”

In Sean and Josh McDowell’s book The Beauty of Intolerance[5], the two seek to tackle the issue of Truth and Love and use the example of a family’s argument about sexuality as the impetus for such a discussion. If you have not read the book, it is a good read and gets to the point of the current culture of a new tolerance that seeks compliance, rather than acceptance, to a narrative of subjective moral values.

But the argument on homosexuality within the Church goes back decades, so what is new? The newness of the issues stems from a poor approach to the issue of homosexuality in the 1970s-1990s from the conservative evangelical Church. Homosexuality was rarely talked about and was often seen as a political issue more than a sin issue. I highlight some of this in a previous article on Free Thinking Ministry’s website[6] (Cuties article) so I won’t go into all of the history here.

However, I think it is important to note that the argument that Christians got lost on during that time was whether or not Homosexuality was a choice or genetic.

The argument goes that if it was a choice, we could reform the homosexual; but if it was genetic, then we could not. This argument also implies that natural proclivity could equate to God-ordained behavior.

I remember growing up in the ‘90s hearing many evangelicals talk like it was absolutely imperative that no “gay gene” would ever be found. Almost as if that scientific discovery would shatter thousands of years of orthodoxy on the topic.

But the biblical case against homosexual behavior is not genetic.

It is spiritual and biblical.

Genetics are just as affected by the fall as our spiritual state, and we know this. When we say things like “in the end, there will be no more sickness or death,” we are not just referring to scripture (Rev. 21:4) but we are affirming that there is a physical component to the fallen nature of man. In other words: Our DNA, physical dispositions, and natural proclivities are fallen just as our soul is fallen.

I want to be clear, I am not calling homosexuality a sickness, at least not a mental illness anyway. But it, like many other “dispositional sins” is a sickness of the soul.

Homosexuality is a product of the fall[7] just as much as lying, cheating, or heterosexual promiscuity. Whether or not it is natural is of no relevance to the theological topic. There are many natural behaviors that we are called to curb as Christians. Covetousness, lust, greed, and pride are just a few of many natural proclivities that human beings are born with that must be dealt with overtime in the sanctification process of the Christian.

Homosexuality falls in line with many of those natural proclivity sins. The church argued against genetics when it never needed to, and as it argued against genetics it allowed a narrative of identity to undercut the nature of the issue.

And now we have a bigger problem.

No longer are we speaking to the activity, we are speaking to a person, and in their minds, we are asking them not to be themselves. We are telling them to release, not only a proclivity of human nature but their entire identity of belonging.

In a sense, we are telling them to call themselves evil.

But no Christian worth his/her theological salt would state that being gay condemns a person to Hell. No, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are constituted sinners, and thus, we stand condemned already (John 3:17). In a sense, it is not sin that makes us evil but our evil hearts that make us sin. God rescues us from our already moribund disposition. We are all basically bad and we all need a new identity to overcome this badness.

However, one can see why someone that identifies with being a homosexual would find it hard to follow a God that calls what they think is their defining nature a sin. If a person is basically good, then their core identity is also basically good.

But orthodox Christian doctrine teaches, and rightfully and logically so, that we are all basically bad and in need of saving. Our identity then is sin and we need an exchange of identity to be good! All of us.

Orthodox theology, to the LGBTQ+ people, screams that God made a mistake when He made them. And like Lil Nas X, they either hate themselves or rebel against the faith altogether:

The result of preaching behavioral modification instead of identity transformation is self-loathing and angst, not a conviction.

The natural result of this, then, is to capitulate to the offended; and the liberal theological movement sought to do just that. They sought to provide a theological landing spot for hurting homosexuals in the body of Christ.

God is love, and as a result, He would not want anyone hating themselves because of their identity. So, we must augment our hamartiology (the study of sin) to allow for behavior that was understood to be sinful over the history of the church because God does not make mistakes.

It is true that God does not make mistakes, but it is not true that His creation right now is perfected. Thus, we are inherently flawed and sinful. If we were not, why would we need a savior at all?

The mistake the liberal theologians make is to assume that there is any room for an identity other than “child of God”[8].

I am a man that is attracted to the opposite sex, but my identity is not wrapped up in that attraction.

My identity is either a sinner or saint. Blessed by God to be invited into His family, I can declare that I am a child of God that happens to be attracted to women. However, as a result, that natural proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

One woman for a lifetime.

I have embraced this limitation joyfully, because it is no limitation at all, but is a realization of the freedom found in the Godhead through Christ. And I believe, firmly, that those who are homosexuals can experience this same counter-intuitive freedom. More on that in the next few weeks.

The response to homosexuality in that regard should be simple enough. You can be a man or woman that happens to be attracted to the same sex (regardless of if it is a choice or is a genetic disposition) but if you are a child of God (believer in Jesus as your Savior) then that proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

Which, unfortunately for the person with natural homosexual proclivities, would be self-denial of acting on that attraction.

My heart aches for this person in a very real way and my empathy extends to them in more ways than they know. But the truth is the truth, and sin is sin. There is no such thing as having compassion on a lie, for entertaining a lie and letting it live is neither compassionate nor merciful. True compassion is lovingly, but firmly, confronting sin and falsehood in the name of Christ and offering freedom in His name.

Just as any heterosexual man that has struggled with pornography will attest, this self-denial of sexual pleasure is beyond difficult and nothing to be glossed over. But we do not deny sexual pleasure to punish ourselves, we do so to glorify God. Boundaries are not set to avoid Hell, they are set to glorify heaven. When we make the mistake of setting boundaries around sin to avoid sin instead of to glorify God we set ourselves, and others, up for fantastic failure.

And it is when we do this that we are tempted to empathize with the seemingly unwinnable battle. I have empathy for all who fight to avoid sin. I know how hard that is, but misplaced empathy can lead to a dangerous theological road and that is what we will tackle next week. How do we show empathy but hold fast to the truth? For that is true mercy and compassion. And that is the mission of the Christian.

Footnotes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Lil_Nas_X

[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/06/lil-nas-x-says-children-are-his-core-audience-right-now-and-thats-ok

[3] https://satan.shoes/

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/lil-nas-x-s-satan-shoes-trolled-some-christians-montero-ncna1262495

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Intolerance-Setting-Generation-Truth-ebook/dp/B015F06DMS

[6] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[7] https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/1/26-27

[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A1&version=NASB1995

Are Christians the New Extremists? Yes, and That’s Okay

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

My blog and podcast have been quiet since April because I was finishing writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.

Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are now a minority in America and how the secular worldview that surrounds us is putting significant pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians more clearly understand the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both for the strength of our own faith and for our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m really excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be posting pre-order details here in the next few weeks.

In reading that, you might wonder if Christians really are a “minority” in America. I discuss this at length in my first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask questions about specific beliefs and behaviors, only about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (holding basic beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and exhibiting corresponding behaviors). Furthermore, researchers have found that not only are those with a biblical worldview now a small minority in America, they’re a small minority within the church.

Now, there are plenty of minority groups that people don’t care much about. I’m sure there are only a handful of people, for example, who eat pickles every morning for breakfast. No one cares. But it’s becoming clear to Christians with a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence…because it hates all we represent.

In a very real sense, we’re increasingly being seen as a small and extreme faction of society.

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Read or watch anything in mainstream media that mentions “conservative Christians” and you’ll immediately know from the tone that the term isn’t being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s now a pejorative that comes with a knowing nod and eye roll among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I’m not necessarily talking about conservative in a political sense; in secular usage, “conservative” is a blanket label to reference Christians who disagree with mainstream secular views. There’s often a correlation with politics, but it’s not exclusive to that.)

The implication is that we’re those people—the hold-outs who won’t get on board with where the rest of society wants to go. We’re seen as an impediment to culturally-defined progress because of how different our views are relative to today’s mainstream secularism.

The result is that secularists now see us with various degrees of indignation. As strange as it sounds to many Christians, we’re the new extremists—a minority group whose views are seen as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” view of secular culture and 2) concerning to the rest of society.

When you sense that this is how culture sees us, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the dominant religious influence in America for the last 400 years, but now it’s extreme (and concerning) to believe that the Bible is God’s Word?

While there’s no reason to agree with secularists that our views are concerning, there are many reasons to agree that our worldview is extremely different relative to the dominant secular worldview culture now holds. We’re certainly “extremists” in that sense—and should gladly embrace the fact if we fully understand the nature of a biblical worldview.

More specifically, we’re extreme in three major ways.

First, we’re extreme in our source of authority

The most foundational difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is our source of authority. Every person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority for what they believe to be true about the world and how they should function within it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He’s revealed those truths in the Bible.

In secularism, a person’s source of authority is the self. Secularism isn’t what you get when you simply subtract so-called religious beliefs from a person’s worldview. When you take away the authority of God, you aren’t left with no authority—you’re left with the authority of you.

This difference in authority is at the root of almost every difference between a biblical and secular worldview.

When the vast majority of people’s authority for truth is themselves, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians are going to come to some very different conclusions about the nature of reality than culture. Even uttering the words “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme relative to today’s average view that the individual reigns supreme.

And for those who assume the Bible is merely a written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremity is concerning. How can Christians be compelled to follow new societal directions if they don’t view truth as something subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of changing popular consensus. But Christians who believe they have un unchanging authority for all time? That’s an infuriating barrier that secularists resent.

Second, we’re extreme in our understanding of morality.

It follows from the first point that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to be at great odds with secularists in matters of morality.

For those whose authority is God and who believe He’s revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, what the Bible says is right or wrong is going to be the final word…regardless of what we think, regardless of what any other individual thinks, and regardless of what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what a stubborn view!

When your authority is yourself, there’s no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is their own God. What’s right or wrong isn’t a matter of what someone else has said—God or not—it’s a matter of what you’ve said.

But wait! Wouldn’t that mean that secularists should accept the Christian view of morality as just one more valid view?

Absolutely.

But they don’t. And this is where secularists fail to live consistently within their own worldview rooted in the authority of the self.

If they were consistent, they’d say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian view is just as valid as anyone else’s since every individual is their own authority and there’s no objective basis for claiming that anything is right or wrong for all people. But a bunch of us have (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue, and we want to try to convince you to change your opinion! Yet even if you don’t change your mind, that’s OK, since everyone’s view is equally valid anyway. Have a great day.”

Instead, they’re saying this: “The (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue is the objectively right view for all people, and if you disagree, you’re wrong…and evil.”

Without an objective basis for morality from a higher-than-human moral lawgiver, the closest thing secularists can have as a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus. That’s why it’s so important for secular culture to continually push their views of morality through every conceivable channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and more. The more people get on board with any given view of morality, the more the popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new supposed standard for what’s right.

But once again, Christians with a biblical worldview aren’t subject to that shift. No matter how prevalent any new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God Himself has said, the popular consensus won’t become our new standard. And that “extreme” viewpoint relative to average culture is mind-numbingly frustrating to nonbelievers.

Third, we’re extreme in believing that judgment can be objectively valid.

This point follows from both of the prior points. Because Christians look to God and His word as the source of authority for our lives, and because views of morality are an outworking of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—not just a matter of opinion.

In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of a secular worldview this way: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the ability or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). From the worldview perspective that the authority is the self, it’s absurd and insulting for someone else to come along, look at a person’s life journey, and claim to know better than they do how they should or shouldn’t be living.

But that assumes there’s no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source for that information.

From a biblical worldview perspective, God has provided that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what’s true about reality, it’s not absurd or insulting to share what He’s said—it’s literally the only reasonable thing to do given that the God who created everything would assuredly know more than any human.

Jesus never said that the world would understand us. To a large degree, secular culture’s views here are to be expected. What concerns me far more is when Christians don’t understand how extremely different a biblical worldview should be from a secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extreme relative to average society understand this more than self-professed Christians who see only marginal differences.

When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we really are “extremists” in today’s culture…and embrace it. Not only is it okay to be extreme in this way, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to.

Why People Hate Being Judged

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what appears to be a universal and deep-seated human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to be jumping on board, believing somehow that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and more accepting of bad behavior.

But when you think about it, the phrase is not quite apt. Most people don’t really mean that they don’t want to be judged. In fact, they do. What they mean is that they want others to approve of their conduct or behavior. What they don’t want is to be judged and found wanting. Whether its sports or academics or work, again and again we see that people want to compete, want to be praised for their performance, and want to come out on top. It is losing – being told that they didn’t measure up or that they did something wrong, or bad – that they seek to avoid.

This inclination to seek praise and to avoid condemnation is apparent from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he smiles, admonish or scold him and he cries. He doesn’t need to be taught how to react; he simply knows it. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively grasp is that there is this thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will make use of this early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “That’s not fair!” he will exclaim, without fully understanding the power of that phrase to influence others. And when he himself is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it’s okay to be unfair; instead, he will say that he is being fair, as he attempts to justify his conduct. It’s only as he gets older that he will learn the clever parry that is so popular today of claiming that judging itself is wrong.

What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to shake off judgment and be free to do what they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling constrained to act a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we do not want to feel guilt. We don’t want that nagging sense that, as CS Lewis put it, we are aware of a law that is pressing down upon us, a law that we did not create and that we cannot evade, for it resides within our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit would possibly derive from feeling guilty about not acting as we should? Would this not inhibit us from future acts that might benefit us in a direct and personal way at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, then those early humans who lacked a sense of guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their self-interest – to enhance their ability to survive and to procreate – as contrasted with their fellows who were inhibited because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes from hurting other people. With survival of the fittest as the rule, behaviors that limit our choices and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we are simply an accident of evolution, pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We intuitively know that there is a right and wrong, that there is good and evil and fairness and unfairness, because the absolute standard for goodness made us in His image. He left within us – written upon our heart as it were – intuitive access to this standard and a desire – a need – to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from ever fully achieving this, but the knowledge of this law, and of our need to yield to it, is part of the very fabric of our minds.

God left within us the desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Though we may not realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a hearty “well done my good and faithful servant.”

What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear ultimate condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us the way home, the path to redemption. But we cannot make it there on our own and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid feelings of guilt does no one any good.

The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Jason Jimenez

All this talk about more equity in our institutions seems like a good thing, right?

Not so fast.

On the surface, equity seems to be fair, just, and impartial. But upon further investigation, you find that the outcome of equity is anything but fair, just, and impartial.

There are undoubtedly those within the debate over diversity, inclusivity, and equity who genuinely try to reduce discrimination and attempt to unite people of different backgrounds. That’s a good thing. But let’s not be fooled into believing that we must embrace the Left’s dangerous views of equity hook line and sinker.

To prevent you from believing the secular lies of equity, I’ve put together three areas that expose the faulty thinking and the dangerous results that come with this unchecked justice referred to as “equitable treatment.”

The Unequal Treatments of Equity

Equality, as we’ve known it to mean, is treating everyone the same. But that’s no longer the case. Instead, the Left has hijacked equality by socially engineering it into something predicated on equal outcomes (i.e., equity), not based on equal opportunity.

The Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), distinctively communicated the difference between equality and equity by writing, “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, a new form of servitude.”

The idea of a “new form of servitude” is to mistreat the fortunate to treat the less fortunate fairly. But how is that just and fair? If equity is about the “systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals,” how is the unequal distribution of benefits to low-income individuals considered equitable? This equitable posture is the classic “fair share” philosophy that has its roots in socialism.

Just because inequities exist doesn’t give the government or some social justice system the right to step in and attempt to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same place. That, my friends, is not equality, nor is it following the impartial mandates of the law.

The Injustice of Equity

In his book, Prosperity and Poverty, Calvin Beisner proves this point, “The only way to arrive at equal fruits is to equalize behavior, and that requires robbing men of liberty, making them slaves.”

The truth is equity (according to the Left) doesn’t promote fairness, equal opportunities, or equal outcomes. As a matter of fact, it snubs individuality, stifles creativity, cheapens competition, steals from hard earning workers, lowers the standards of achievement, and actually advances partiality—and often, promotes racism.

On his blog, Neal Hardin writes, “In order for total uniformity of results to be achieved, there would have to be a uniformity of our characteristics and desires. In other words, true equality of outcome could only result if there were no meaningful differences among human beings or the choices we would make, which seems to go completely contrary to the diversity which God intended in creation. Clearly, on some level, God created us with these diverse characteristics and desires expecting different outcomes.”

To ignore each person’s uniqueness, giftedness and not to embrace diversity is in itself an injustice that (if left unchecked) leads to more discrimination and oppression.

The Inconsistencies of Equity

“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the protest group declared in a tweet. The tweet went on to say, “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation (always have. And always will be).”

But here’s the thing. If BLM is for equity, then why don’t they stand with Israel?

Or how about female athletes (who have XX chromosomes) that are losing to transgender athletes (who have XY chromosomes)? How is that equitable treatment? From the start, women athletes are being placed at a disadvantage and have no real chance to arrive at an equal outcome. Where’s the equity in that?

What about Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago? In the spirit of equity, she, a black woman, only gave interviews to black and brown journalists in celebration of her two years in office. Say what? How is that being fair while discriminating against white journalists? Not to mention is that honest journalism?

Here’s the bottom line. No one denies there are disparities among people. We come from different backgrounds, ethnic groups, families, etc. But just because we are created equal doesn’t mean we are all created the same. We are not all the same. And it is feasibly impossible to make everyone end up at the same place.

Individual freedom doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. It does, however, provide equal opportunity for people to succeed in life. Our nation was founded on the solid conviction that equality of humanity retains and sustains the essence of human rights in a civil society. That’s the kind of equity Christians should support and defend.

However, when the culture measures human rights based on color, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, that culture will not survive. The more America moves further away from God and his truth, the deeper our nation will slip into spiritual corruption and generate more inequalities and inequities within society.

As Christians, we are to honor the fact that each human is made in the image of God. We need to remember that God has made each of us diverse in color, ethnicity, and personality and learn to appreciate the uniqueness and difference in each of us.

Tag Archive for: Culture

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

​1. Read the Bible with your kids, and don’t skip the hard stuff.

​2. Expose your kids to atheism.

3. Expose your kids to false gospels and other religions.

Other practical resources:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Homosexuality is just as much a sin as eating Shellfish in the Bible

Homosexual was not even a word in the Bible until 1946

God Did Not Make a Mistake when He created Me

A Homosexual in a Committed Consensual Relationship is Fulfilling a Marriage Covenant

So what then?

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Unequal Treatments of Equity

The Injustice of Equity

The Inconsistencies of Equity

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. Read the Bible with your kids, and don’t skip the hard stuff.

2. Expose your kids to atheism.