Tag Archive for: Culture

The Christian Left: The New Referee of Morality?

Only in the twisted ethos of today’s Christian Left is a maskless man considered a cold-hearted murderer, while an abortionist is celebrated as a heroic social justice warrior. With seemingly no regard for the scales of justice, the spiritually ‘woke’ Democratic Party is willfully bending the rules of right and wrong to favor their own ethically bankrupt agenda and to ensure it triumphs in the state — no matter the cost. Although they claim to be religiously devout, the Left ignores natural law and has abandoned the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our nation is built.

Arguments from Silence

Responding on TikTok to the question of “Isn’t the Bible against abortion,” a self-identifying “queer lady pastor” answers, “No, not really. The Bible doesn’t say much. Jesus definitely doesn’t say anything [about abortion].” Using what is referred to in philosophical and historical analysis as an argument from silence, this female TikTok pastor attempts to reject the notion that Christianity necessitates a pro-life position due to her claims that the Bible fails to mention abortion. Arguments from silence offer notoriously poor reasoning and little logical proof for her cause.

Although they claim to be religiously devout, the Left ignores natural law and has abandoned the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our nation is built.

For instance, suppose in the next Super Bowl a receiver gets behind the coverage and Tom Brady hits him in stride. As the receiver sprints toward the end zone, the beaten defender pulls out a gun and shoots him in the back five yards short of the goal line. Imagine the uproar if after the referees confer among themselves regarding a flag on the play for pass interference, the final call were presented as, “Upon further review, since nowhere in the rule book does it explicitly say that you can’t shoot a player at the five-yard line, we’re going to assume the commissioner approves of the defender’s freedom to choose. The play stands as called.”

While the rulebook might not explicitly mention that the murder of another player is against the rules, everyone in the stands possesses an innate knowledge that such behavior is not only against the rules — it’s a crime against humanity!

Obvious Sophistry

The Christian Left might claim to be very “devout,” but such reasoning demonstrates, much like the referees in the example on the field above, that they aren’t fit to determine right from wrong. It is as if they pretend not to know what the rule book says about the most important matter of the law — the protection of life — and then assume, contrary to the evidence, that God supports their egregious behavior.

This kind of reasoning is obvious sophistry.

While it’s true that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, this doesn’t at all mean that it’s permitted. Even a brief glance at the scriptures reveals that it was unthinkable to the God-fearing Hebrews to kill a child (children were a blessing from the Lord) and abortion was already prohibited by the 10 Commandments (i.e. “You shall not murder.”) Likewise, the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention felony home invasion either, but it is already prohibited by “You shall not steal.” You have to be willfully blind to think otherwise.

Self-appointed Referees

Religious conservatives understand that the primary role of government is to protect its citizens from evil. Government is not commanded to insert itself in every aspect of life or provide services that individuals normally do (the government may do those things, but that’s not its primary charge). Paul writes, government “rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Ironically, the Left, as the self-appointed referee of morality, eagerly embraces this role to punish the wrongdoer by assuming they themselves — and not scripture, natural law, or the Constitution — are able to define what is wrong and what is right. Take for instance calls from the Left recently to pressure cable providers to “punish” conservative media outlets by removing them from their platforms. Rather than protecting the unborn or defending First Amendment rights, the Left is busy silencing and fighting free speech!

Promoting Evil

With their support for government-paid abortion, the Left is actually promoting evil. After all, what could be a greater evil than murder? Rulers who don’t want to prevent a murder — and actually want to pay for it — are failing in their primary mission. That’s why being pro-life is a necessary, but not the only, condition for our vote. Being pro-life doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a ruler, but being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies them.

Likewise, religious progressives who elevate debatable and less critical issues to supreme importance, while simultaneously offering support of abortion, stand as co-conspirators in the deaths of the unborn. To the Christian Left, climate change trumps abortion, as if allowing the possibility of the river next to the stadium rising two inches a hundred years from now is a graver sin than allowing 800,000 babies to be murdered this year. Jesus would charge them, like he did the politicians of his day, with “neglecting the more important matters of the law.”

The Christian Left is Unleashing Chaos

The job of a good referee is not to affect the outcome of the game one way or the other, but to ensure the game is played fairly by the established rules. The rules are in place to allow fair competition among the players while protecting the players from unnecessary harm. One could imagine what would happen to the game of football if out-of-bounds were overlooked so that fans could walk on and off the field as pleased; if there were quotas on players based on sex and race; and if the players were fined based upon the penalties of their predecessors. It would be chaos. Yet, this is exactly what the left is doing to this country.

All of this is being sold by the Christian Left as some kind of biblical social justice. There is nothing just or biblical about abortion (the same could be said about illegal immigration and the redistribution of wealth). While we cannot question their good intentions, there is no doubt about their inevitable bad results.

If our nation hopes to recapture even a semblance of true justice, as well as our founding freedoms, we must reject the empty ethics of the Left, and revisit the spiritual and ethical guidelines found within our Judeo-Christian roots and the Constitution.

Editor’s note: Watch Frank Turek discuss these issues with Randy Robison on LIFE Today Live.

Progressive Ideology and the Hijacking of the Christian Faith

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek & Lucas Miles

As only the second Catholic to hold the office, President Joe Biden continued a nearly 70-year-old tradition by addressing America during the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month. While Biden is far from the first Democrat to address the crowd, in the new era of the ascendant Christian left, much more is at stake. In years past, Democrats almost seemed comfortable being viewed as a faithless party. But since mid-terms are usually catastrophic for the party in power, Democrats must soon find a way to convince voting Christians that Jesus would look more like a liberal than a conservative.

In order for progressive ideology to gain a stronger foothold among the masses, Biden and the woke democratic party must do two things: One, they must create animosity toward conservatives and traditionalists who hold to biblical ideas regarding social issues, and two, they must create a sense of moral superiority by growing an elite group of people — namely the Christian left.

A ‘Woke’ Socialistic Agenda as a Christian Alternative

The left, unable to demonstrate moral superiority based upon traditional Judeo-Christian values, must attempt to pass a “woke” socialistic agenda as a more Christian alternative. That’s where progressivist priorities — such as government-run universal healthcare, climate change, and open borders — are ostensibly a nod to Christian charity (as long as you only pay attention to the intent and not the results).

Animosity is fostered by tarring half the electorate with the political extremism that carried out the Capitol riot. The left insists that anyone associated with Trump, including evangelicals, must be immoral and evil (important note: this judgment does not apply to anyone associated with the hundreds of riots in 2020). By never letting a good crisis go to waste, the Christian left is using the Capitol crisis to sow doctrinal confusion and temporarily defend their position — as the keepers of true morality and righteousness — thus distracting from the truly anti-biblical agenda of the democratic party, namely abortion rights and the destruction of the biological two-parent family.

Distraction and Deception

Distraction is the key to accomplishing leftist goals — to hijack anything, you need to distract (and deceive). Progressive Christians distract by using moralistic-sounding language while redefining the words with leftist definitions. For example, the very word “progressive” sounds good, yet it assumes some kind of moral progress. Progress toward what? An ultimate standard of good? Such a standard can only exist if God exists. Without being “endowed by our Creator,” all talk of rights (and wrongs) are reduced to mere human opinion.

But if progressive Christians are truly progressing toward God’s standard, then why do they continually support policy positions that are clearly contrary to His standard — a standard known clearly through natural law (“we hold these truths to be self-evident”) and Scripture?

They do what many with a bad case do. They distract and deceive by not only redefining the standard but redefining the moralistic sounding words they use to sell the new standard. We might say that they come as an “angel of light.” Here are a few examples.

Freedom to Choose

Who can be against freedom and choice? No one, unless you ask them to complete the sentence. Freedom to choose what, murder? Should we have the freedom to rape and choose slaves too? And why does a woman have the freedom to choose to kill her children, but not the freedom to choose where she sends them to school?

Inclusion, Tolerance, and Diversity

This sounds good as well. But it really means that every diverse viewpoint and behavior is to be heard and celebrated except those that do not agree with the left. God-honoring viewpoints — like those held by Jesus and his apostles — will not be tolerated. Ironically, in the name of “inclusion tolerance and diversity,” the Christian left will exclude anyone agreeing with Jesus! (Forget the church — it’s the left that convicts people of heresy, and always without a trial.) And why do people call themselves Christians when they disagree with Jesus? Progressive Christian is an oxymoron.

Equality

Again, who can be against that? No one if it means the biblical and American ideals that we are all created as equal images of God, and that the law should not show favoritism but treat everyone equally. However, that’s not what the Christian (or secular) left means by equality. To the left, “equality” now means two things:

1) All sexual behaviors and gender identities must be embraced as normative (again contrary to the Bible and common sense), and anyone who disagrees will not be treated as an equal but cancelled; and

2) Everyone is entitled to the same outcome. (Equality of opportunity has become “equity” meaning equality of outcome.) Biden’s recent equity executive order flips the Bible and Martin Luther King on their heads. Instead of judging people on the content of their character, we are being ordered to judge people based on the color of their skin. Quotas and reverse discrimination are likely looming as agencies in the executive branch are pressured to find and correct inequities of outcome (not just opportunity). This despite the fact that the Bible does not command or predict equal outcomes (not even in Heaven!).

While we should strive for equal opportunity under the law, no society in history has ever produced equal outcomes among all groups. That’s because such outcomes are usually determined by several factors that can’t be equalized by the government, including talents, motivation, and personal behavior. In fact, Jesus contradicted the democrat insistence on equity when he said that talents (resources) would be taken from those that failed to use and grow them and given to those that did — even those who had more!

In our next column, we’ll cite a few more ways Christian leftists are attempting to hijack the Christian faith and expand their political influence.

How To Be Friendly To People Who Oppose You Politically

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jiménez

Christians can get so worked up over politics that they can sometimes blow their witness.

Sadly, this is something we see more frequently on social media. It seems like no matter what your political views are, someone will be offended or will publicly attack you over your support of a candidate they feel is dangerous to the American way of life.

A big reason for Americans’ aggressive behavior is because their views run deep into what is referred to as “identity politics.” Politics is no longer about aligning with a specific political party. Nowadays, people’s political views are intertwined with their religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and social or economic status.

If left to its own devices, identity politics can bring out the worst in people. That’s why Christians shouldn’t rush to placate political labels at church. It can send the wrong message and cause a rift with other church members.

Without question, the American church is at a crossroads between faith and politics, which is very disturbing.

So then, what can you do to overcome this contention and bring some clarity and unity back into the Christian community?

Well, for one thing, when you’re knee-deep in a discussion about politics, don’t let secondary issues impede your progress in finding common ground. It’s possible for Christians to have thoughtful debates over politics without biting each other’s heads off.

To avoid letting a conversation surrounding politics from getting too heated, follow these three steps:

Step number one, be cordial. Peter wisely states, “Show proper respect to everyone” (1 Pet. 2:17). It’s okay to critique the other person’s political views as long as you don’t turn into a disrespectful critic of their political party. Avoid getting defensive and cutting the other person off. Your ultimate objective is not to prove the other person wrong but to improve the relationship. No progress can occur if you’re not willing to show respect and listen to the other person.

Step number two, be biblical. Much of the time, political conversations consist of citing a political pundit to back up an opinion. You might be right positionally, but make sure your argument is based primarily on biblical truths rather than from sources that feed your ideological position. As a follower of Jesus Christ, make sure politics do not overshadow the gospel and doctrinal truths. In so doing, you will keep the main thing the main thing and find more important areas of agreement.

Step number three, be reasonable. If you love people and good ideas, you will spend adequate time sharpening your arguments and learning from others. As you debate with someone who holds to a dramatically different political opinion, you will want to be clear and logical when presenting your positions; while, at the same time, remaining teachable (see Phil. 4:5; Js. 3:7).

No matter how intense a political debate may get within the four walls of the church, make it your goal never to let politics ruin your relationships with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

By applying these three steps, you are sure to have friendly interactions with those who don’t share your political views.

Pope Biden and the New Theocracy of the Christian Left

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek & Lucas Miles

After four years of accusing conservatives of violating the First Amendment by attempting to establish an American theocracy, the conclave of the Christian Left sent the ceremonial white smoke of affirmation through the metaphorical chimneys of our nation’s capital as The Times announced a more “religiously observant” neo-papacy, headed by none other than President Joe Biden, himself.

The Christian Left’s Theocracy and Hypocrisy

No longer identifying as simply Catholic or Christian, Biden’s deeply praised spirituality has adopted qualifiers, such as Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity, proving that the left takes no issue with an American theocracy, as long as democrats are able to exchange the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, for the holy Marxist trinity of diversity, acceptance and social justice. In this America, President Biden’s pro-abortion beliefs are lauded as “steeped in Christian rituals and practices,” while simultaneously Leftists derogatorily refer to Amy Coney Barrett’s pro-life agreement with the Church as “dogmatic.” Contrary to what The Times says, Biden is not only, not “religiously observant” of the Church’s most important moral teachings, he denies them through his policies. In the new theocracy of the Christian Left, such Biblical defiance is not only desired, it is the very definition of devotion.

Biblical Defiance Required

Forget forgiveness of sins, repentance, and the cross. The new religion of the left initiates its members through forced acceptance of global warming, racism, and pro-abortive child sacrifice. Fueled by a nearly state-run liberal media, the Christian Left holds their new pope’s doctrines, ratified by cowardly executive orders, as infallible and the ultimate expression of not only faith but science, as they “solve” every problem from poverty to pollution. To deny their logic — that allows grown men in girl’s restrooms and invents more than 100 genders — is heretical and will land one in certain “ex-communication” from the church of the state through total political and financial cancellation. Severe offenders even risk being refused access to the left’s most divine sacraments, Twitter and Facebook. This new progressive theocracy considers it perfectly legitimate to be a card-carrying member of the Christian Left and still supports anti-biblical ideals, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, despite mountains of biblical evidence to the contrary. For the church of Biden, there are no contradictions here — after all, the archaic mumblings of biblical orthodoxy are no match in their minds for the religiously enlightened dogma of its past saints, like Darwin, Marx, and Obama, as well as the theocracy’s holy mother herself, Margaret Sanger.

Straining a Gnat, Swallowing a Camel

They assert that liberal Christians can not only overlook abortion, but they can celebrate it, because of the plethora of other pro-life issues that the Democrat party addresses, like universal healthcare, the dangers of global warming, and open borders. So it’s perfectly legitimate, they say, to be a progressive Christian and support politicians who are pro-abortion — after all, for the left, Biden’s Christianity is “less focused on sexual politics and more on combating poverty, climate change and racial inequality.”

Forget forgiveness of sins, repentance, and the cross. The new religion of the left initiates its members through forced acceptance of global warming, racism, and pro-abortive child sacrifice.

Except, of course, this isn’t true. Politics under Biden and the Christian Left have never been more sexualized, with an outright obsession with genders, a women’s right to choose, transgenderism, and introducing America’s children to drag queens. Apropos of Jesus’ rebuke of the religious and political leaders of his day, the Christian Left is nothing more than “blind guides,” who “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” Much like the Pharisees of scripture, today’s progressive Christians are majoring in the minors. For instance, we have “religiously observant” politicians telling us what light bulbs we can and can’t use, all while neglecting to shed light on the worst injustice imaginable — the senseless slaughter of the unborn — and even worse, all in the name of women’s reproductive rights! Christ-centric Christians know that this logic runs afoul of Jesus and common sense.

One Issue Disqualifiers

Now, none of this means that Christians should be one-issue voters. Being pro-life on the abortion issue doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a good candidate. Christians and conservatives should also want their candidates to be strong on other issues as well (i.e. religious freedom, national defense, the economy, etc.). Understanding Jesus’s teaching means that we are not one-issue voters but we are one issue disqualifiers, that is when that issue shows complete disregard for human life. In other words, while being pro-life doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a good candidate, being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies someone as a good candidate.

In light of an “ascendant liberal Christianity,” true followers of Christ must learn to discern the difference between men who declare themselves gods, and a God who made himself man.

For this reason, a candidate’s position on abortion may very well be the best metric to determine if someone remains true to Christianity, as defined by scripture and natural law, or if they’ve joined the new theocracy of the Christian Left.

Support for Pro-Abortion Politicians and the True Christian

For those who still think it’s appropriate to support pro-abortion politicians, I have a few questions: Would you take the same position if the issue was not abortion but slavery? Would you reason, “There are other freedom issues that are important too, so it’s perfectly fine to support pro-slavery candidates”? Would you deny the moral importance of voting for Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas? Would you gloss over the fact that Douglas not only wants to keep slavery legal, but he wants you, the taxpayer, to subsidize it? I doubt you would. Like Jesus, you would charge anyone making such a terrible case with “neglecting the more important matters of the law,” and as such, true Christians, whether Republican or Democrat, should do the same in Biden’s America. In light of an “ascendant liberal Christianity,” true followers of Christ must learn to discern the difference between men who declare themselves gods, and a God who made himself man.

How critical is this moment for Americans?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Richard Land

I cannot help but think that a large majority of American citizens are very, very concerned about the current state of our union.

The increasing hostility and political protests that have roiled our society for the past few years seem to be reaching a crescendo in the events that have unfolded in the aftermath of an extremely acrimonious election cycle in which there seemed to be little common ground. Many people have blamed President Trump for this increasing level of incivility, but he was more a symptom and a product of the dissatisfaction and unrest of many citizens rather than its progenitor.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2020, numerous people were quoting the late, great Martin Luther King Jr., who had sought in 1967 to explain the phenomenon of “riots” without condoning them, observing that “A riot is the language of the unheard.” The left was quick to seize upon this explanation as a reason for the violent protests that wracked many of our cities in the summer and early fall of 2020. Mr. Trump, the first president to be elected without any prior political service, or alternatively just having won a war (generals Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower), was obviously a political phenomenon produced by a significant segment of the American population between the two coasts who felt “unheard” in their frustrations in being victimized by globalization and the consequent disappearance of their livelihoods.

How else do you explain a Donald Trump? Like most political observers, I would have said what Trump did in going straight to the White House in his first political campaign could not have been done – until he did it.

Unprecedented reaction to his victory in 2016, with significant segments of our media and political culture, never accepting the legitimacy of his victory, stating “He will never be my president,” and calling for his impeachment within hours of his taking the oath of office. It helped raise the temperature and rancor of political discussions at an alarming rate.

Now we find ourselves in the position where many Americans feel disenfranchised by President-elect Biden’s victory and the censoring of political speech by the High Tech Cartel (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Apple, etc.). Once again, I would not have believed such a denial of the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech until it occurred. Evidently, these vastly powerful entities have been so consumed by their hostility to President Trump they do not see what they are doing. How else do you explain Twitter condemning precisely the same behavior in a foreign country (Uganda), stating,

“We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of #openinternet.” They further observed that “access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter is never more important than during domestic processes, particularly elections.” I could not agree more. It’s true in Uganda, and it’s true in the USA, too.

And now, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of the U.S. House “impeaching” the president less than a week before he leaves office, with the earliest the Senate could take up the case being 1:00 pm on January 20, 2021, when Mr. Trump will have already been replaced by then-President Biden. This makes a mockery of the intended constitutional purpose of impeachment, which is to remove a sitting president, and reminds me of nothing quite so much as the British royalists who returned to power in 1660 disinterring Oliver Cromwell’s corpse from Westminster Abbey, where he had been buried in 1658, so they could hang his corpse in chains and then decapitate him. Cromwell’s head was displayed on a poll outside Westminster Hall until 1685.

It is well past time for all Americans of the goodwill of all political persuasions to listen to our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, who in his first inaugural address in 1861 closed with this eloquent plea for Americans to turn aside from secession and looming civil war:

“I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The multiple chords of memory stretching from battle-field and patriot grave, every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, and by the better angels of our nature.”

Tragically, too many of our ancestors chose not to heed Lincoln’s urgent plea, and the entire nation reaped the whirlwind of a bloody civil war that ripped the country asunder and cost approximately 750,000 war dead (J. David Hacker) North and South and multitudes of widows and orphans in their wake. Let us all hope and pray that we heed the warnings and listen to the “better angels of our nature” this time.

In closing, I want to reference a powerful novel, Word of Honor, written by Nelson DeMille and published in 1980. Word of Honor is the semiautobiographical novel of a man who served as an infantry platoon lieutenant in the Battle of Hue in 1968 in a similar time of national division and recrimination in our country. Anyone who lived through that year remembers it well. Although the preacher parts of me are offended by some of the passages, it is a riveting read. The lieutenant is on trial in 1980 for his platoon, having purportedly committed war crimes in Vietnam. When he recounts to his attorney what actually happened, his attorney replies, “What else? Steal chickens, too?” The lieutenant replied,

“As a matter of fact, they were not bad. Not in the beginning. But you can only log so many miles on a man and imprint so many obscenities on his brain before he begins to malfunction.”

I am fearful that too many of us are heedlessly imprinting the equivalent of obscenities on our fellow citizens and on our society – which is a living, breathing thing – and it is beginning to malfunction.

It is the duty of every American to do everything we can to stop it before it imperils our country.

CHRISTIANS SHAMING CHRISTIANS OVER VOTING FOR TRUMP: 3 STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS THAT NEED TO STOP

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

There’s been a sad fallout among Christians now that the election chaos has (mostly) come to an end and a new administration is taking over: Christians are shaming other Christians for having voted for Trump.

It’s one thing to say, “As a Christian, I didn’t support Trump because (fill in the blank with disagreements regarding his character or the party platform).” But it’s entirely another thing to mischaracterize why many Christians did vote for Trump and then attempt to make that into a shameful thing. Not only is that uncharitable between brothers and sisters in Christ, but it fuels the flames of the resentment non-believers have toward politically conservative Christians.

When a person mischaracterizes another’s position on something in order to attack it, that’s called a strawman fallacy. And there’s a lot of strawmanning going on right now.

Here are three big ones.

Strawman 1: If you voted for Trump, you did so because you want Christians to have political “power.”

Ed Stetzer, a dean and professor at Wheaton College, published an opinion piece in USA Today this week titled, “Evangelicals face a reckoning: Donald Trump and the future of our faith.” The subtitle is, “We must live up to our calling as evangelicals: to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world, rather than betray Him to sustain worldly power.”

The subtitle is simply puzzling—if a person voted for Trump, they weren’t living up to their calling as evangelicals because they were chasing after worldly power? This is a strawman, but to understand why, we need to understand what it means to be a secular country—and what it doesn’t.

The United States constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is what people commonly refer to as the principle of “separation of church and state” (though that term is nowhere in the Constitution). The Establishment Clause ensures that the government will not establish a state-supported church and will not force individuals to practice a particular religion. That’s a great thing! It’s freedom of religion. But that says nothing about how individuals should or shouldn’t use their religious beliefs to inform their participation in public life. Secular doesn’t mean we’re supposed to create some kind of neutral, value-free society and keep our worldviews to ourselves. That’s impossible. Every society necessarily makes judgments about what’s good and bad, and ultimately those are worldview questions.

Now, with that in mind, does that mean Christians want power when they vote a certain way? If by power, you mean that they want to advocate for the values that are consistent with their worldview, then the answer is yes, and that’s not a problem. That’s what one should expect to happen in a secular country, where the state isn’t enforcing the authority of a single religion. Everyone is free to vote according to their conscience. If Christians supposedly want “power” because they vote according to their worldview and values, then every single person voting could be accused of the same thing.

One has to wonder, then, what Stetzer has in mind when he cautions Christians not to “betray” Jesus to sustain worldly “power.” Whatever a person thinks of Trump personally, it should be obvious that many Christians (if not the vast majority) were not voting for him as some kind of godly individual, but rather for the platform he represents—particularly over and against the Democratic platform. To suggest that Christians who chose the Republican platform over the Democratic platform are somehow betraying Jesus by voting for someone in the interest of “power” is just outlandish. Conservative voters aren’t chasing power any more than liberal voters are. They’re just voting for the platform that best aligns with their values, even if the candidate representing that platform doesn’t always embody those values. (Does any candidate ever?)

Strawman 2: If you think your faith should inform your political views, you’re a “Christian Nationalist.”

This phrase (“Christian Nationalist”) is getting tossed around everywhere lately. According to an organization called “Christians Against Christian Nationalism,” the term refers to “a cultural framework that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civil life…it carries with it assumptions about nativism, white supremacy, authoritarianism, patriarchy, and militarism.” You can see an image from the organization below.

Let me just say I have literally never come across a Christian who would be considered a Christian Nationalist according to this description—and I follow a lot of online groups/social media communities with Christians all over the spectrum of belief. That’s not to say such people don’t exist (there are always extremists), but that they certainly don’t represent a large number of Christians.

Here’s the problem: People are slapping a strawman label of “Christian Nationalist” on anyone who voted for Trump. If a Christian Nationalist is someone who meets these criteria, then it’s ridiculous to say that all those voting conservative are “Nationalists.” However, I don’t think most people have a specific list such as this in mind when they use the term. They’re simply accusing Christians of mixing church and state because they voted for a platform according to their (Christian) values. To them, that’s “Christian Nationalism.” But, as I explained in the prior point, that shouldn’t even be seen as a problem! Again, it’s what’s expected in a secular country. We have freedom of religion—no state church—and can use that freedom to vote based on our conscience.

This point is closely related to the first point, but comes with a fancy label for extra shaming.

Strawman 3: If you’re concerned about the future of the country given the election results, you’re putting your faith in a person (Trump) rather than in Jesus.

I have seen numerous reminders on social media that we need to put our faith in Jesus, not a political savior. Sometimes these are meant as a simple encouragement, but a lot of times they come with the implication that those who are concerned about the direction of the country under Biden are putting their hope in politics instead of Jesus.

This is the ultimate strawman!

No one I know “worships” Trump or thinks that the President is some kind of replacement savior (not that that means such people don’t exist, but those who do certainly don’t represent the average Christian). People who voted for him may believe that his policies will place the country in a better direction than those of Biden, but that isn’t a confusion about where our hope comes from. When Christians talk about hope in a biblical sense, we’re talking about the hope of eternal life. We may additionally have political hopes for our country’s direction, based on our worldview, but these are completely different kinds of hope. A person can have the hope of eternal life, the hope of a certain direction of the country, and deep concern about an election outcome all at the same time.

Christians are on the receiving end of all kinds of mischaracterizations by non-believers. When we strawman each other, we only add to those misunderstandings. Moving forward isn’t about how we fix our “reputation” for having voted for Trump (as some Christians seem to be concerned about); non-believers will never like our values, no matter who we vote for. It’s about having nuanced and charitable conversations about the best way to live out our faith in the public square…while accurately understanding and responding to one another’s views. Strawmen are easy to blow down, but the damage is hard to fix.

Four Ways We Can Revolt Against Big Tech

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Big Tech is hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview. As such, it is a threat to the free exchange of ideas, religious liberty, and our ability to practice and talk about our faith publicly. For those reasons, I’ve made the case that Christians should lead the revolt against Big Tech. But how can we do that? Politics is important but it is not the final answer. I’ll explain why. And then I’ll offer you four ways to help start a revolt against Big Tech.

A Word on Politics

Before I go further with this, I want to address the idea of Christians being involved in politics. Some believe that Christians shouldn’t have anything to do with politics. But I think that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Christians have an obligation to be involved in politics. Politics is where worldviews collide. And we are responsible to advocate for Christian ethics and actions in the public square. Politicians make laws. Laws protect and defend moral positions. If we don’t stand up for our moral positions, we will have to live with someone else’s.

We absolutely should be involved in politics. Always.

Politics Won’t Solve The Problem(s)

That said, the people who recognize the issues I’m addressing here are mostly seeking political solutions to the problem. There is talk of removing Rule 230 from the 1996 Communications Decency Act. That law — itself part of a broader telecom law — provides a legal “safe harbor” to protect internet companies from being sued for libel. The idea for Rule 230 was to promote the free exchange of ideas on the internet. It was meant to ensure that platforms like Facebook and Twitter (that just provide a forum) are not held accountable as editors (who determine what can or cannot be published). The idea was to promote free speech and diversity of opinions.

We see how that’s worked out. Facebook and Twitter do act like editors. They determine which views can be published. But they’re protected anyway.

Others are talking about breaking up the Big Tech monopolies. Monopolies have too much power, so that seems reasonable. But the problem with Big Tech is not that it has constructed monopolies. The problem is intellectual conformity and intolerance for diverse points of view. Big Tech is hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview and to its values. Making big companies that are hostile to our ideas … into little companies that are hostile to our ideas doesn’t solve anything in the end.

The Essence of the Revolt

Removing Big Tech’s protective shield and breaking up the behemoths are both good things to do. The problem is that political solutions treat the symptoms, not the disease. And we don’t have time to wait for politicians anyway. They’re not reliable. And they’re mostly ineffective. Big Tech is not. Besides that, about half the politicians in this country share Big Tech’s ideological point of view. And that’s the problem that needs to be addressed.

So, I’d like to offer four suggestions. First, two things that all of us can start doing tomorrow. Then, two things that few of us can do, but all of us can encourage and support.

1. Train People to Think Critically

This is the most important thing of all. It isn’t emphasized in our schools. And it rarely happens in our churches. It’s difficult and time-consuming. You have to read things that may be a little over your head. And you have to be willing to challenge yourself and others to get better at it. Iron sharpens iron, after all.

People who think critically can spot errors in logic and call it out. They are comfortable at speaking out in defense of truth, goodness, and beauty as being objective features of the world we live in. The ability to do just that one thing will begin to upend everything that makes this culture the amoral, relativistic morass it has become.

Christians (in general) are notoriously bad at critical thinking. We need to change that. You need to change that. And you can start by taking on this simple book: Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy, by Gregory Ganssle. Don’t be scared off because the title has the word “philosophy” in it. Philosophy is just two Greek words crammed together: philo (love) + sophia (wisdom). Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Every Christian should embrace it.

There are countless other books, websites, and parachurch organizations that can help you in this endeavor. I talk about them on this site all the time.

Stay tuned.

2. Use Alternatives

Remember that the fuel for Big Tech behemoths is the revenue they generate by exploiting the personal data you freely give them. They use that data along with your social media interactions, internet searches, and browsing history to sell your information to companies that want it. It’s very simple:

You are the product

Knowing that tells you all you need to know about how to undermine Big Tech.

Quit selling yourself. Stop fueling the Big Tech Engine that is trying to squash you.

GOOGLE

As you can see, Google (which also owns YouTube) accounts for more than 90% of the market share for internet searches. When you type in a search, Google collects, curates, and sells information about your search and browsing history to advertisers.

So, here’s the complicated plan: Stop using Google, its Chrome browser, YouTube, and Gmail. The level of surveillance and data collection you allow them about your personal habits and interests is staggering. Every account or website login. Every message you send or receive. You will never be able to imagine how deeply embedded Google is in your life until you try to disentangle yourself from it all.

But there are plenty of other options.

Browsers: The Brave web browser is three times faster than Chrome and more secure. It doesn’t collect your private data or sell it to third parties. And it uses 35% less battery on mobile.

Search Engine: Qwant and Duck-Duck-Go are powerful search engines that don’t save your IP address, don’t save your search results, and don’t sell your private data. They just search.

Email: Do your own research but I have found Proton Mail and Tutanota to get consistently good reviews. Each offers a free version. Getting more features may cost you $3-$5/month. But remember the big difference. This makes them the product, not you.

If enough of us changed just these three things it would have a significant financial impact on Big Tech’s most notorious culprit, Google.

SOCIAL MEDIA

I’m not going to enter the “you-should-disconnect-from-social-media” debate. There are plenty of fantastic practical, ethical, and psychological reasons to do that. Even those who were instrumental in creating social media giants agree to that. They won’t let their own children have accounts on the platforms they created!

But I’m not here to virtue signal. And I’m not here to convince you that that’s what you should do. My goal is to do my little part to defund Big Tech. So, if you don’t think deleting your social media accounts is realistic, at least move them away from the monopolistic thought police.

The fact is there are alternatives to Facebook (MeWe), Twitter (Parler), YouTube (Rumble), and Instagram (VSCO) that will allow you to continue to participate in online “communities,” share things with one another, and interact much the same as you do now. The key is that using these alternatives takes the product (you) away from the Big Tech overlords. And the revenue you generate goes with it. These alternate platforms don’t collect or sell your data. They just provide a place to interact.

Most of them are still in their infancy. They don’t have as many features as the Big Guys. And right now, they are mostly populated by ideologues from the opposite point of view of their predecessors. But, as more and more of us abandon Big Tech, those alternatives will become more robust, diverse, and enjoyable. My point about the revolt against Big Tech is simply that we begin to strip it of its power. And this is a way to start doing that.

3. Build Big Tech Alternatives

If you have the knowledge, skill, and means to create Big Tech alternatives, please get to work. As Peter Rex points out, we need tech companies that are far removed from the Big Tech centers of Silicon Valley and Seattle. But, more importantly, we need them further removed from the toxic, self-perpetuating, Big Tech ideology that is threatening to crush free thought.

Big Tech has become quite good at mastering people. We need alternatives that serve people.

The beauty in this is that there is a huge market for creating alternative tech companies. And it is ripe to be tapped. Offering people an ethically superior alternative to the Big Tech masters of the culture could prove to be extremely lucrative.

4. Invest in Free-Thinking

The great majority of us aren’t tech wizards. We can’t build Big Tech alternatives. But we certainly can support those who do. This includes investing in technology entrepreneurs and supporting companies that are creating new ways to compete with the behemoths. The simple act of changing your internet browsing and social media platforms are examples. But if you have the means to actually invest in competitors to these Big Tech companies, please do.

It also includes supporting private high schools and independent universities that refuse to play along with the politically correct mandates of the cultural thought police. I would say this is just as important as donating to your local church. The ramifications of not doing so are too menacing to ignore.

By this, I do not mean to say that we have to create and support Christian companies or schools. Honestly, I don’t even know what would make a company “Christian.” But we can certainly seek to support those that are not hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview like Big Tech is today.

A Win-Win Example

In 2014, Mozilla (the company that produced the Firefox web browser) forced Brendon Eich out of the company he founded. Why? Because six years earlier he had made a small donation to a campaign to oppose the Proposition 8 same-sex “marriage” initiative in California. Eich never talked about it or pushed his views at work. He never publicly addressed the issue. In fact, no one he worked with knew anything about his views until public records exposed his contribution to oppose Proposition 8 in 2014.

Brendan Eich is reportedly a politically middle-of-the-road Catholic. But he held the wrong view on same-sex “marriage.” So, he had to be destroyed. This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Rod Dreher calls it “soft totalitarianism.” And it is our collective future if Big Tech is allowed to continue down the path it has chosen. But here’s why I bring it up.

Brendan Eich didn’t just curl up in a ball and surrender. When he was forced out of Mozilla, he gathered investors to start a new company. There, he developed the Brave web browser I mentioned earlier. His story embodies everything I’ve been talking about. The platform is private and ideologically neutral. Using it supports a guy who created an alternative to the Big Tech default technology and ideology. Win-win.

Don’t Lose Sight Of The Purpose

I started this two-post blog series with a video of Peter Rex at Hillsdale College. Rex is a billionaire and tech entrepreneur. You and I are not. Hillsdale College is one of the very few institutes of higher learning in this country that still believes in and encourages free inquiry. You’ve probably never heard of it. But these are the kinds of people and organizations we need more of. If the hundreds of millions of faithful people in this country are willing to follow and support people like Peter Rex and places like Hillsdale College, we can start a revolt against Big Tech. And we can change the culture.

We certainly owe it to our kids and grandkids to try.

Why Celebrate Thanksgiving?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bernard Mauser

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. Philippians 4:6

Thanksgiving means different things to different people. Some say it is about food, family, and football. Others, that it’s a break from work or a time to stand outside of your favorite store to get Christmas gifts for a great price. Tied up with this celebration in history is the religious element of giving thanks to God for His blessings.

There are two things to keep in mind about Thanksgiving. First, there is the holiday that people celebrate around the world. Second, there is the command that Christians are to be people who constantly give thanks in every situation. Although the history of the holiday is interesting, the more important is the second. Christians recognize, as did our founders, Thanksgiving should be a time to thank the true Ruler of the nations. Let’s look at both the historical and the Christian background.

First, when you ask kids what they know about Thanksgiving they’ll talk about turkey and Pilgrims. The first Thanksgiving in the New World was celebrated with the Pilgrims in 1621. There are only two original sources that mention this celebration. We discover this report (using modern spelling) from Edward Winslow:

“our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”[1]

William Bradford adds, “besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many.”[2] We find the original celebration lasted three days and the menu included deer, fowl, and turkey.

George Washington issued the following proclamation of Thanksgiving on October 3, 1789 to God for his protection and the blessings God has conferred upon us as a nation:

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington[3]

After this time, various leaders in America proclaimed different days of Thanksgiving to be held throughout the United States. Yet there was no fixed day upon which all the nation would devote to such an observance until a woman named Sarah Josepha Hale wrote a letter to Lincoln which implored him to make “Thanksgiving a National and fixed Union Festival…. To become permanently an American custom and institution.”[4] On October 3, 1863, Lincoln declared a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens” to be held the last Thursday of November. It has been held on this day in America ever since.

Long before any of these celebrations in America, the Israelites had instituted peace offerings to God as a way of giving thanks. Moses instructed the Israelites in Leviticus 7 about these peace offerings in order to maintain fellowship with God. This practice continued throughout history in many nations as men have recognized both that God is the ruler of all the nations and that every good and perfect gift comes from Him. (James 1:17) The Thanksgiving holiday is an excellent time to remind us of this important outflow of thanksgiving that should be sewn into every part of every day. Let us never go a day without giving our Maker and Ruler both thanks and praise.

Notes

[1] https://www.pilgrimhall.org/pdf/TG_What_Happened_in_1621.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091

[4] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm

How Should Christians Think About The Transgender Movement?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Ryan Leasure

In this post, we’re asking the question: How should Christians think about the Transgender Movement? In many respects, this is a difficult question to answer because the movement is constantly in flux and definitions frequently change. Be that as it may, Christians must do their best to engage Transgenderism from a biblical worldview.

God’s Good Creation

From the outset, we must acknowledge that Transgenderism was not part of God’s pre-fallen creation. Not only did God create both male and female as a complementary pair, his assessment of his creation was that “it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Both male and female, image-bearers of God, in perfect fellowship with God and each other.

In addition to their harmony with God and each other, both man and woman had perfect harmony with their bodies. Genesis 2:25 tells us that “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” No disgust or confusion existed in humanity’s gender identity. They were comfortable in their own skin. So much so, that nudity was an afterthought.

Corruption Of Sin

Sadly, paradise was lost. Man and woman chose to usurp the lordship of God and declare themselves to be their own lords. Instead of submitting to God’s good direction, they carved out a new one for themselves. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing the same thing ever since — defying God’s authority and calling our own shots.

Immediately after the first humans sinned, the way they interacted with the world shifted dramatically. Genesis 3:7 reports this shift: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Before the fall, naked and unashamed. After the fall, bodily shame.

They experienced this shame, not simply because their bodies began a long journey of decay, but because sin ransacked their minds. Jeremiah says it most succinctly, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). As a result, we can’t always trust our thoughts and feelings because sin has corrupted them.

At root, this is the underlying cause of the Transgender movement. We are a people who have been so radically affected by sin’s corruption, that we’ve become uncomfortable with our own bodies. This is especially the case for Transgender individuals who experience gender dysphoria.

Definitions

In order to think biblically about the Transgender Movement, we must have a basic understanding of the following definitions:1

Sex — Refers to one’s biological makeup and composition (XX or XY chromosome).

Gender Identity — A person’s self-perception of whether they are male or female (or something else entirely).

Gender Dysphoria — A mismatch between the gender that matched one’s biological sex and the gender one feels oneself to be.

Cisgender — A term used to refer to people who have a match between their biological sex and their personal gender identity.

Transgender — A term used to refer to individuals who identify or express a gender identity that does not match their biological sex.

The Perfect Storm

In order for Transgenderism to gain a footing in western culture, several factors had to coalesce to provide the proper soil for the movement to sprout.2 The first factor is the culture’s embrace of relativism. Relativism is the view that objective truth does not exist. Instead, everyone experiences their own individual truth. Hence, phrases such as “you can’t tell me what to do” or “you live your truth and I’ll live mine” pervade the cultural landscape.

Another factor is our post-Christian society. It’s no surprise that our culture is running away from its Christian roots at a rapid pace. While residual effects still linger, the dominating forces our our culture — the university, the media, and the entertainment industry — are increasingly leading us away from Christianity’s influence.

A third factor is our embrace of the sexual revolution. With the rise of no-fault divorce, the pill, and the separation of sex from procreation in general, western culture has embraced the mantra “if it feels good, do it.” That is to say, no sexual boundaries exist anymore except a consenting partner.

And fourth, a gnostic view of reality undergirds the Transgender Movement. The ancient heresy of gnosticism taught that the physical world is evil, while only the spiritual is good. In the same way, Transgenderism has embraced the idea that one’s feelings ought to trump one’s biology.

The combination of these various factors has provided the perfect storm for the rise of the Transgender Movement.

What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You

I recently read an op-ed in the New York Times titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy.” The author, Andrea Long Chu begins with a shocking admission:

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to.

Notice how Chu admits that the surgery won’t actually reassign sex. Chu’s body will regard the vagina as a mere wound which will require ongoing treatment. That is to say, all that surgery and cross-sex hormones can do is provide cosmetic changes. They cannot change one’s chromosomes. People who undergo sex reassignment surgery, therefore, do not become the opposite sex. They simply masculinize or feminize themselves.

While the activists want to paint a beautiful picture of the Transgender Movement, the reality is much, much darker. Chu goes on to state in the article, “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones. . . . Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began my transition.” Statements like these ought to grieve us. People like Chu deal with deep emotional pain and they deserve our most sincere compassion. Gender dysphoria is no joke, and we ought not treat it lightly. What this article makes clear, though, is that transitioning away from one’s biological gender is not the solution to one’s problems. In fact, it often makes one feel worse.

Chu writes, “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.” Sadly, this is a reality for many Transgender people. Studies show, that no matter how accepting one’s culture is, risk of suicide remains astronomically high for those who undergo sex reassignment surgery.

I don’t mention any of these points lightly. I’m grieved over the pain many experience. But if there’s anything that we can learn from stories like Chu’s, it’s that embracing Transgenderism is not the solution.

Ramifications

While the Transgender Movement touts its desire to make sure everyone gets fair treatment, the reality is that the movement mows down anyone in its path. Consider Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker, former director of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and its Gender Identity Clinic (GIC). While Zucker himself was not opposed to the Transgender Movement, activists pushed for his termination because he was insufficiently pro-trans. His sin? He believed that we should be cautious when transitioning children. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) pressured the Canadian government into shutting down his practice despite that fact that his patients gave him raving reviews.3

Of course, this raises this issue of children who experience gender dysphoria. Unfortunately, activists push for kids to transition despite the fact that 80-95% of all kids who experience gender dysphoria grow out it.4 As part of the treatment plan, they urge puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Once kids reach the age of eighteen, then they can get sex-reassignment surgery if they like. But in what world with any moral decency is it appropriate to manipulate children’s physiology like this, not to mention their emotional state?

Bathrooms and locker rooms have also been front and center of this conversation. While the issue is probably most significant for schools, the debate went national with the North Carolina bathroom bill which stated that Transgender individuals had to have their birth certificate changed to their new preferred gender before they were allowed to use the opposite bathroom. This led to a massive outcry by cultural elites. PayPal terminated their expansion plans in North Carolina over this human rights violation. Of course, they kept their international headquarters in Singapore where private, homosexual sex will get you a two-year prison sentence.

Sports is another area affected by the Transgender Movement. Recently, Laurel Hubbard, formerly known as Gavin, won two gold medals in weightlifting at the Pacific Games. In Texas, Mack Beggs won her second straight wrestling state championship. Mack is biologically female, but transitioned to a male a few years ago by receiving testosterone injections. Mack went 36-0 in her final season. Controversies also surround Transgender track and field athletes because of their unfair advantage over biological females. And then there’s a Transgender UFC fighter who cracked an opponent’s skull and sent her to the hospital to receive treatment for severe head injuries.

In the end, the Transgender Movement isn’t all about fair and equal treatment. It holds no prisoners for anyone who opposes it. Doctors, employers, and politicians must toe the line lest they encounter the wrath of the activists. But perhaps the biggest victims of the movement are girls and women. Not only has their privacy been violated by allowing biological males to share locker rooms with them, they are also put at unfair advantages athletically having to compete against bigger, faster, stronger men.

Rebellion Against Our Maker

Deuteronomy 22:5 states, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” At root, the problem is a rejection of God’s creative design. God made us male and female (Gen. 1:27), and the very small number of intersex cases doesn’t undermine that.5

The command in Deuteronomy 22:5 couldn’t be any clearer. Don’t reject God’s biological design for you by pretending to be something you are not. Just like Adam and Eve, Transgenderism is a rejection of God’s lordship over us. It shakes its fist back at God and says “don’t tell me what to do!”

This rejection only comes by a willful suppression of the truth. Even though God has revealed his plans for sex in nature, people have chosen to go in a different direction. We read in Romans 1:24-25, “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

Concluding Thoughts

Gender dysphoria is a real issue that has caused untold thousands deep emotional distress. As Christians, we should be sympathetic towards these unique struggles and provide support and encouragement with a spirit of grace. In my next post, I will go a bit further into this by asking: How should Christians lovingly engage those with same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria?

The Separation of Church and State Deception

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Josh Klein

We’ve been duped.

I cannot think of another way to put it. The Christian right has been duped.

Deceived by what? You may ask.

The separation of Church and State.

What if I told you that the phrase “separation of Church and State” was found nowhere in the constitution or the Bill of Rights?

It’s true.

Now, we’ve constantly been told that the first amendment of the Constitution is where we get the phrase. But how? And was it to protect the Church or the State?

Commonly, the ACLU and other left-wing advocates have indicated that separation of Church and State is meant to keep religious speech and thought out of the public sphere. They argue that individuals with deeply held religious beliefs should not let their religious morals dictate their policies. Of course, this all comes to a head as Donald Trump is appointing a devout Catholic with a record on pro-life rulings to the Supreme Court. Long time Senator Dianne Feinstein implicated that such beliefs were a danger to the constitution when she said to Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you,”[1] whatever that means. The argument of course only applies to those on the right side of the aisle. Those on the left are encouraged to use their voices and religion to convince the masses. For instance, Mayor of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg constantly used his religious opinions to back up his political motives[2]. Advocates for nationalized healthcare have also often used religious language to advocate for the socialization of the healthcare system. But when it comes to voices speaking out against abortion or for individual responsibility based on scripture charges of conflating “church and state” abound. And too many have been duped into believing that to be the case.

Churches have been sidelined in many a political discourse at the use of the words “separation of Church and State.” Prayers before football games have been cause for litigation since the 1990s[3]. Churches threatened with the loss of tax-exempt status for entering the political sphere[4] and non-prophets have been threatened as well. Public schools have been shamed into eliminating public prayer before events and again, the hot button topic of the day is the religious affiliation of a future Supreme Court justice.

But what does “separation of Church and State” mean? Where did it come from? Why is it important? And, as a Christian, is it really not okay to use our faith in determining political engagement? And where is the pastor’s role in all of this?

These are important questions in this day and age, and for too long the Church has abdicated the responsibility for answering these questions to the public sphere.

Where does “separation of Church and State” come from? And what was its purpose?

Many might say it comes from the constitution. They are wrong. That does not mean the concept does not reside in the constitution. It does. However, to adequately understand what the term was meant to establish one must know where it comes from what part of the constitution is it derived.

The term itself was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 in which he commends the first amendment and implies that it is the Church, not the State, that is sought to be protected by it. He says, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that acts of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”[5]

The history of the conversation is even more interesting. The Danbury Baptists were concerned about their religious freedom and penned a letter to Jefferson prior to his inauguration into office. Jefferson’s response was to insure them that the practice of religion was, in fact, an inalienable right guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution.

The term then became codified as part of the First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in 1878. Thus, the confusion for many that it is a part of the constitution when the words do not appear in the writings.

But what does all of this mean?

It simply means that, as Jefferson wrote to reassure the Danbury Baptists, the desire to not establish a national religion was an effort to protect the Church (religions), not the State.

In other words, our public discourse has missed the point. It is not to separate religion from government completely, but to separate governmental control from religion completely. Protect people’s right to worship, not to protect the government’s atheism because, as we shall see, the government was not intended to be run atheistically.

And this principle was understood by the founding fathers.

They knew that a nation built on the fundamental idea that God (the creator) endowed each individual with inalienable rights must incorporate religious thought and ethics in the way it governed. That is, in fact, a religious statement!

John Adams famously said this in a letter in 1798 “Because we have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by – morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition – Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People” (emphasis mine).[6]

Two of the authors of the constitution seem to indicate the opposite of our current civil discourse. The guiding of our government can only be adequately done through moral and religious convictions. The freedom to worship is not a positive right given by our government, it is a negative right given us by our Creator. The government’s role is not to tell us who or what we ought to worship, or how, but to protect our God-given rights to worship.

So what sense does it make then that government would make any statements curbing speech or reference to God (any god for that matter) in a public setting? Also, given the history of our constitutional writers, would they not be pleased with the selection of justices that exhibit a moral and religious standing?

Would the founding fathers be opposed to public discourse that not only mentioned God but also offered to worship God? According to Jefferson and Adams, they would not. The only objection they may have is if the government made a law that forced others to worship a certain way.

How then should Christians and the Church act politicly?

It is clear, at least to me, that the above evidence (and there is plenty more, but for the sake of space we will rest the case there) would indicate not only a prohibition on the government from intervening in worship but also an encouragement from government for religious entities to engage with politics.

Religious institutions, churches, pastors, and the like should be outspoken and engaged politically. So long as no laws are being passed to infringe on a person’s right to worship whomever or whatever they choose then religious engagement should be robust, not anathema.

But, as Christians, we are not bound to the constraints of the constitution but by the constraints of scripture. How ought we engage in public life in a way that is honoring to God? Just because it is legal does not mean it is biblical.

This is a difficult question to answer, in part because the cultural context of 1^st century Rome is so politically different than 21^st century America, as well as the ambiguity with which Jesus carried himself on political matters. However, I do think there is a solid biblical precedent for the believer to follow.

On a personal and a corporate level, I believe the engagement can look very similar.

As a Pastor, I seek to understand what the leadership in the church did politically throughout the scriptures. First, I see a group of believers that were fairly apolitical but also understood their role as citizens. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 both indicate that a humble submission to the authorities is necessary to maintain a good witness as well as to best glorify God. However, Acts 5 would indicate that there are exceptions to this sort of submission. Those exceptions take place when the government is dictating that we must not worship our God and/or dictates that preaching the gospel is antithetical to the government’s legal system. In both cases, it seems clear throughout scripture that disobedience of man-made institutions to glorify God is not only acceptable but required.

Given what was established by the constitution, it seems that the freedom we experience in this country is a cause for celebration and humble submission to our governmental authorities, but it also means that we ought not abdicate our political responsibilities at a personal or corporate level.

The laws of our great nation were meant to encourage interaction with the political sphere from the religious sphere. The religious sphere was expected to influence the political sphere, though the political sphere was to refrain from influencing the religious!

For far too long we have let empty words about supposed Christian political ethics bind our consciences. Religion was always intended to be the bulwark of the American social fabric. Thus, as Christians, we should feel free to engage with politics on a religious level.

Whether or not to be overtly political from the pulpit or from within a religious organization then transfers not from a Romans 13 issue but to a Romans 14 issue. This is an area where each individual congregation must make its decision, but to forbid all churches from acting in politics seems unconstitutional and unbiblical.

As a pastor, I also seek to take my cues from the Apostle Paul on this matter. He was not afraid to use his political rights as a citizen of Rome to protect himself and further the gospel (Acts 22:22-29). Why are we so hesitant to exercise our rights? Rights given by God and recognized by the American Constitution are far more available to us than they were to Paul?

Because we have been told that we are not good Christians if we are also patriotic. Now, there is an argument that can be made and should be made, for those that put their country above their God. This dogmatic patriotism is a form of idolatry and thus, a sin.

But these are not the people I am addressing in this section.

It is not anti-Christian to be pro-American (see, Should Christians Be Against Christian Nationalism?). I do think that Christians ought to be honest about the moral failings of America’s past and present; however, to be a proud citizen of the country and to participate in that citizenship appropriately is not only good but godly. Paul exemplified this for us through his life and writings. He was a proud Roman but not without a critique of Roman culture when it cut against the grain of God’s holiness. Yet somehow, there is a movement seeking to convince the Christian right that any sort of patriotism is idolatry and that exuberant participation in the American system of government is complicity in all its evils, real or imaginary. Of course, the same standard is not set for the Christian left, which would laud the abhorrent practices of abortion and gender transitioning among children within our own culture.

In a sense, the use of “separation of Church and State” as a political weapon against Christians has been effective. No loving Christian worth his or her salt would endeavor to be considered politically motivated in their religious practices and ideology, so we tend to take the critiques to heart and placate the complaints with mea culpas aplenty. It is time that we stand for our rights as citizens of America and as godly disciples within that same vein.

This means a thoughtful and robust engagement with politics from a Christian perspective should be expected from our churches, and not simply the churches that correspond with the popular liberal narratives. We must no longer be afraid of the charge of politicization of the gospel when, in fact, it is in standing for the gospel that we embrace the political realm, especially in America. In no other land throughout history and time has the Christian been given such a lofty platform as the platform of the first amendment.

Like Paul, who used his Romans citizenry as a means to explicate the gospel throughout the empire, we also must seek to use our American citizenry to freely and unapologetically declare the truth to the masses. If we are condemned for doing good amidst our national discourse, then we have fulfilled 1 Peter 2 in its fullness.

It is not only within our rights as citizens of this country to fight back against the misuse of the first amendment against religious institutions; it is also liberty afforded to us through scripture and the example of other godly people that came before us. Let us not acquiesce to the loud narratives about what churches can and cannot do amidst the political landscape, but let us boldly preach the gospel and the truth of biblical justice and morality in accordance with scripture and in submission to the original authors of our nation’s founding document. In doing so, we do not espouse hypocrisy, nor do we cheapen the gospel through politics. In fact, I would argue that scripture indicates the opposite of those charges is true. If we are to be salt and light, we must be salt and light in all spheres of culture. Preserving the good and exposing the vile for that is what we use salt and light to accomplish, yes, even in and perhaps especially in the political realm.

Notes

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/feinstein-the-dogma-lives-loudly-within-you-and-thats-a-concern/2017/09/07/04303fda-93cb-11e7-8482-8dc9a7af29f9_video.html

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/politics/pete-buttigieg-religious-journey/index.html

[3] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-ohio-school-district-over-football-team-prayers

[4] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics

[5] https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

[6] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102

Tag Archive for: Culture

Nothing Found

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria

Tag Archive for: Culture

Arguments from Silence

Obvious Sophistry

Self-appointed Referees

Promoting Evil

The Christian Left is Unleashing Chaos

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A ‘Woke’ Socialistic Agenda as a Christian Alternative

Distraction and Deception

Freedom to Choose

Inclusion, Tolerance, and Diversity

Equality

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Christian Left’s Theocracy and Hypocrisy

Biblical Defiance Required

Straining a Gnat, Swallowing a Camel

One Issue Disqualifiers

Support for Pro-Abortion Politicians and the True Christian

Recommended resources related to the topic:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Strawman 1: If you voted for Trump, you did so because you want Christians to have political “power.”

Strawman 2: If you think your faith should inform your political views, you’re a “Christian Nationalist.”

Strawman 3: If you’re concerned about the future of the country given the election results, you’re putting your faith in a person (Trump) rather than in Jesus.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Word on Politics

Politics Won’t Solve The Problem(s)

The Essence of the Revolt

1. Train People to Think Critically

2. Use Alternatives

GOOGLE

3. Build Big Tech Alternatives

4. Invest in Free-Thinking

A Win-Win Example

Don’t Lose Sight Of The Purpose

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God’s Good Creation

Corruption Of Sin

Definitions

The Perfect Storm

What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You

Ramifications

Rebellion Against Our Maker

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Where does “separation of Church and State” come from? And what was its purpose?

How then should Christians and the Church act politicly?

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Tag Archive for: Culture