Tag Archive for: Free Thinking Ministries

I’ve been fascinated by Marxism since my parents first told me about the Cold War we were living in when I was almost 10-years-old (1983). I remember asking them why the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons aimed at us. After my parents reassured me that we had just as many nuclear missiles aimed back at them — ensuring that they will not use these weapons against us (peace through strength) — they explained it to me like I was 10-years-old (because I was). While not using these exact words, my parents basically told me that the Soviet Union was based upon a philosophy called Marxism which is logically incompatible with America’s theological and philosophical foundations. This sparked a desire to learn more about our fundamental disagreements.

I wanted to know about America’s philosophical foundations. I wanted to know more about Marxism. So, over the past four decades I have studied Marxism off and on as a hobby. While I make no claims to be a Marxist scholar, as a philosophically inclined analytic theologian — who has applied the tools of my trade to this hobby — I do think it’s fair to say that I know enough about Marxism to have an informed conversation on the matter. So, since my parents provided me with a nice introduction to Marxism four decades ago, allow me to pay it forward and provide an introduction here.

Marxism 101 

In a nutshell, Marxism is a socio-political and economic ideology developed by Karl Marx (hence the name “Marxism”) and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. As Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, his philosophy emphasizes the role of struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor in societal development. Marx advocated for a classless, stateless society where the means of production are owned collectively.

That might look good on paper, but Marxism has a rich history of utter failure, poverty, tyranny, death, and destruction. Indeed, if we are comparing death counts, Marxism makes Hitler’s Nazi Party seem tame. While Hitler’s Holocaust of evil murdered six million Jews, those putting Marx’s philosophy into action have killed well-over 100 million people! Yet, while we do not hear that we’ve got to keep trying Naziism again and again, Marxists demand that despite repeated failures, along with more and more death and destruction, we must keep trying to implement Marxism again, and again, and over again.

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results

The preceding words are attributed to Albert Einstein, but whoever originally said it, these words ring true. Yet, Karl Marx’s philosophy — which promises a better tomorrow — always leads to the same outcome, with the “useful idiots” who helped to usher Marxists into power, now trying to escape their new “utopia.” (The term “useful idiots” is not a pejorative term, but a Marxist term for a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda.)

Konstan Kisin was fortunate enough to escape Marxism and puts it this way:

Lenin promised a better tomorrow in Russia, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Mao promised a better tomorrow in China, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Castro promised a better tomorrow in Cuba, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Chavez promised a better tomorrow in Venezuela, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.

Surprisingly, many useful idiots living within the borders of America — while enjoying a protection of their unalienable God-given rights — seem to think that they should use their freedom to destroy their freedom by making progress toward a Marxist utopia. The historical death count alone should prevent any sane person from advancing the cause of Marxism today, yet key tenets of Marx’s philosophy are alive and well.

Marxism’s Key Tenets

Here’s a short list of key ingredients included in Marx’s philosophy:

1. Class Struggle: Marxism is basically a worldview that posits a necessary conflict that only Marxism can solve. Marx said that the history of class struggles were between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class). Today, the language typically used (and that most of us will recognize) is the struggle between the “oppressed” and the “oppressor.” The ultimate goal is for the proletariat (or “the oppressed”) to overthrow the bourgeoisie (“the oppressor”), leading to a classless society.

Marx utilized the oppressor/oppressed narrative in the 1840s when he co-authored the Communist Manifesto. Today, you will hear the exact same language used by those at the top of the Black Lives Matter organization. This makes sense since the leaders of the movement have proudly admitted that they are “trained Marxists.”

2. Abolition of Private Property: Marxists advocate for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, etc.) and propose that these should be owned collectively by the community or ruling government.

As the World Economic Forum (WEF) recently said, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”

3. Collectivism and State Control: Marxism starts with Socialism and emphasizes the central role of the government in controlling and distributing resources until the state itself “withers away” and transforms into full-blown Communism.

4. Critique of Capitalism: Marxism views capitalism as an exploitative system where the bourgeoisie (or the oppressor) extracts surplus value from the labor of the proletariat (or the oppressed), leading to inequality and social injustice. Thus, the Marxist advances what they refer to as “social justice,” which seeks equity (equal outcomes) as opposed to equal rights and opportunity.

Kamala Harris points out the difference between equality (equal rights and opportunity) as opposed to equity — “all ending up in the same place” (equal outcomes) in this short video.

5. Revolutionary Change: Marxism advocates for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system, rather than reforming it through gradual or democratic means. We have seen this throughout history. “Political power grows out of a barrel of a gun” are infamous words uttered by Chinese Marxist named Mao Zedong. This has happened multiple times in world history, but most of us are old enough to remember that Black Lives Matter led a summer full of “mostly peaceful” protests combined with extremely violent riots in 2020 (that made January 6th look like a guided tour of the Capitol building). We saw a snapshot of what trained Marxists are willing to do in order to destroy “the system” in hopes to “Build Back Better.”

Karl Marx died in 1883, but his ideas have evolved and advanced at the Frankfurt School in Germany which exists for the purpose of advancing Marxism. This provided the foundation for the idea known as Critical Theory, and what has been advanced recently as Critical Race Theory (CRT). It’s vital to recognize this “theory” has deep roots in Marxism.

*Click here to read a copy of a speech I gave to the Kearney Public Schools Board of Education in 2022 about the dangers of CRT.

America’s Philosophical Foundations

The key tenets of Marxism are in opposition to America’s theological foundations stated in the Declaration of Independence and enemies of the United States Constitution. That is to say, the foundational documents of the United States are based upon principles that are incompatible with Marxism:

1. Individual Equal Rights and Private Property: The Declaration of Independence emphasizes God-given equal and “unalienable rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” which are closely tied to the protection of individual rights and private property (starting with the private property of your own body). The Constitution enshrines these rights through various amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights. Marxism, in contrast, seeks to abolish private property and emphasizes collective rights and property over individual rights and property.

2. Limited Government: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of limited government, with checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power. When the government is smaller, We the People have more freedom. Marxism, on the other hand, advocates for a powerful state — ultimately a dictator — to control resources and enforce equity (equal outcomes) upon all people, regardless of their personal choices.

3. Democratic Processes: The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic and the U.S. Constitution is based on democratic principles where change is achieved through We the People in an electoral processes and the rule of law. As noted above, however, Marxism often advocates for revolutionary change, which can involve the use of horrible violence and the overthrow of existing governmental structures.

This is one reason why the Second Amendment (2A) of the U.S. Constitution is so important. America’s Founders realized that the human right of self-defense — and the defense of loved ones — serves as an insurance of all of our other rights and is “necessary to the security of a free state.” This makes it clear that the 2A is not about “hunting rights,” it’s about security and the ability to oppose enemies of the Constitution; foreign or domestic (this might explain why progressives, who are willing to use violence to overthrow the freedoms of American citizens, often seem frustrated by the 2A).

4. Capitalism: The American system is built on a capitalist economic model, which Marxism fundamentally opposes. The protection of free markets and private enterprise is central to the U.S. economy, whereas Marxism seeks to dismantle capitalism entirely.

These fundamental differences lead to an inherent opposition between Marxist ideology and the principles enshrined in America’s theological and philosophical foundational documents. These two views are logically incompatible. The American system prioritizes individual human freedom (my favorite topic), private ownership of property, and a government that serves and protects objective and unalienable human rights, whereas Marxism seeks to replace these structures with a collectivist system focused on equity and the forced communal ownership (ultimately through the barrel of a gun) of all resources and everything else.

I believe that America’s philosophical foundations are objectively true (i.e., they correspond to reality). Thus, in order to avoid painful collisions with reality, we ought to strive to correspond to reality. In a nutshell, I affirm Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Accordingly, objectively good governments will not violate a human’s God-given rights. Indeed, an objectively good government will use its power to protect and fight for the God-given rights of humanity.

Since I possess knowledge that Christianity is true (given a cumulative case of evidence), I also know that Jefferson was right. Humanity was created on purpose and for specific purposes. This places us in an epistemic position to know exactly what our God-given rights are. This is also why it’s vital to study the entirety of God’s inspired Word (read your Bible)! Ultimately, Bible-believing Christians know that humans have God-given rights that ought not be violated by anyone – including governments.

In addition to the four philosophical principles of American philosophy, listed above, House Speaker Mike Johnson provides seven key essentials (some overlap with the above list) that American Conservatives — those seeking to conserve America’s philosophical and theological foundations — uphold:

  1. Individual Freedom
  2. Limited Government
  3. The Rule of Law
  4. Peace through Strength
  5. Fiscal Responsibility
  6. Free Markets
  7. Human Dignity

 

Progressives, as opposed to conservatives, have different goals. Whenever one refers to themselves as a “progressive,” I always ask them to clarify and be specific about what they are “progressing away from” and what they are progressing toward. I’ve had these conversations on many college campuses around the country and it seems that those who refer to themselves as “progressive” tend to make progress away from America’s philosophical foundations and often find themselves on a journey toward what they have been promised: a Marxist utopia.

This utopia can only exist if America’s foundation can be destroyed. Or in the words of Kamala Harris:

“To see what can be, unburdened by what has been.”

Make no mistake, Marxists have a religious devotion to being “unburdened by what has been” (America’s philosophical foundations). Despite horrendous failures over and over again, a Marxist utopia is what they believe “can be,” if they just try it one more time.

A Theological View of Marxism

Marxism is not merely a “shallow philosophy” (Colossians 2:8). As a theologian, I believe it is fair to refer to Marxism as a religion or a religious substitute. Of course, Marx did say that “religion is the opium of the people” so, although Marx himself would probably not refer to Marxism as a “religion,” it does share striking similarities with religion. Indeed, it seems to be an anti-Christ religion.

Just as Buddhism is often referred to as an “atheistic religion,” Marxism also seems to be worthy of that label. This is because it steps into the theological lane and attempts to provide answers to the problem of evil, sin, atonement, and forgiveness.

I have published two books and an academic journal article destroying particular arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Namely, all the problems of evil. I highly recommend reading the chapter I contributed to the book, Faith Examined (Wipf and Stock, 2023) where I show that if Christianity is true, combined with God’s necessary omniscience, then all the so-called “problems of evil” melt away. But, as philosopher Owen Anderson notes in his article, “Mere Marxism,” the Marxist seeks to take a non-theological approach to addressing why evil exists in the world. The problem is that some people have more stuff than other people. The Marxist’s answer is that the places where there is not as much suffering have exploited the places that have more suffering. Dr. Anderson writes:

In this story, those places were once Edenic. The people lived in harmony with each other and with nature until European sails were seen on the horizon, and all hell broke loose.

Of course, anyone with minimal knowledge of history knows this is historical revisionism (see, How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt). As Anderson notes, before these lands were “colonized” by Europeans they were . . .

“filled with idolatry, sexual immorality, warfare, cannibalism, rape, self-mutilation, torture, and human sacrifice. But if you are taught the Mere Marxist narrative from K-12 and then in college, it is all you know.”

So there is a “problem of sin” in Marxism, and some are born sinners and some are born sinned against. But don’t worry, just as Jesus provides good news so that you can be set free from sin, the Marxist religion also provides atonement for your sins (more theology) if you happened to be born into the class of “oppressor.” Of course, this atonement is not through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but rather, Marxism is a religion of works. If you were born into the class of the sinful oppressor, you can be saved and make the world a better place by giving lots of your money and time to progressive causes — along with much virtue signaling.

Anderson notes that

“Marxism should rightly be considered as a cult that borrows from Christian beliefs. It teaches about a perfect time, the introduction of sin (private property and greed), and the path through atonement and redemption. It is a religion of works. There is no grace or mercy. You can only be redeemed by doing your fair share.”

Now that we’ve shown Marxism to meet the requirements for being a religion, I’m sure the ACLU will be consistent and demand the separation of Church and State.

So, not only is Marxism the enemy of America’s Philosophical Foundations, it’s also opposed to The Law of Christ and the gospel message. Marx seemed to realize this inherent contradiction between these two worldviews when he decried that “religion was the opium of the people.” Thus, religion — especially Christianity — opposed the goals of Marxism. After all, if the ultimate goal of Marxism is equity (equal outcomes despite personal choices) it opposes the teachings of Jesus and the Law of Christ.

This is why, in order to transform America into a Marxist utopia, one of the first steps was to advance arguments raised against the knowledge of God. This is also why those advancing Marxist ideals have spent so much time focused on the growing number of theologians and philosophers who “destroy every argument raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5) and provide a cumulative case of arguments and evidence supporting the existence of God and the truth of the historical resurrection.

When Christianity thrives, Marxism dies. 

Conclusion

This article briefly surveyed some key principles of Marxism and compared and contrasted them with key principles of America’s philosophical and theological foundations. We have seen that these two worldviews are logically incompatible and thus, natural enemies. Indeed, when one takes the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution . . .

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

. . . one promises to defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. Marxism is at the top of the list of these enemies.

Although the evil of Marxism presents itself in physical form against your neighbors, loved ones, and the least of these (Mark 12:30-31; Matthew 25:31-46), while promising to help them, it comes to destroy them. We must remember where this evil comes from. The Apostle Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:

12 For our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. 13 This is why you must take up the full armor of God, so that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having prepared everything, to take your stand.

Of course, these spiritual forces of evil in which Paul speaks have infected the minds of many humans. We must seek to reason together (Isaiah 1:18) and speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) as we strive to free their minds (which is what FreeThinking Ministries is all about). We must always speak the truth, but we should begin with gentleness and kindness. If those we love refuse to listen — and as this evil becomes a clear and present danger to them and others — then Jesus and Paul give us examples of how the most loving thing to do is to stop worrying about being nice or coming across in humility. At that point, speaking the hard truth with cold facts is often the most loving thing a person can do for those refusing to see this danger.

Stay awake!

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world (1 Peter 5:8-9).

Bottom line: We must call out the evils of this “shallow philosophy” (some have referred to it as the “woke mind virus”) which has taken so many captive (Colossians 2:8). Your neighbors, your loved ones, and the least of these depend on your voice. With this in mind, do not be silent in the face of evil! Be loud for the sake of love.

Much more can be said on this topic. Don’t worry, although this article was written as an introduction to the topic, FreeThinking Ministries has many articles and videos about the evils of Marxism (including several from Phil Bair, the author of Marx Attacks). More are forthcoming. Stay tuned.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and live in freedom (Galatians 5:13).

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

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

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 


Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Original Blog Posted Here: https://bit.ly/47wepLU

 

Language is complex. Language provides the building blocks for communication in society.  What certain words or phrases mean within a given context helps to shape the understanding of the culture at large. Words, and their definitions, are what organize society. Words that define a culture’s foundational institutions most of all. Concise language provides clarity and direction for communities, cultures, and countries.

Language matters. It is important to define what I mean by language here. By language, I simply mean the common words used in a culture and their natural meanings. I am not pitting a *type* of language (English, Spanish, German etc.) against another. It is within these *types* of language that we find the foundational elements of society.

What is a Woman?

It is this fundamental organizing principle of language that is at the heart of the Daily Wire documentary What is a Woman.[1] In it, conservative commentator Matt Walsh seeks to hammer down a definition of the word woman.  In one of the more interesting choices of the documentary he travels to Kenya to meet with a Mosai tribe to seek out their perspective on the topic. In this scene the point of how words are defined is poignantly made. The Mosai do not struggle with what a woman is because they have clearly defined the word within their culture, however, gender theory activists struggled to define the word beyond a mere tautology (a circular definition like: “Apple is defined as an apple”). The ambiguity in our culture concerning the definition of woman is the point and confusion is the natural product. This confusion leads to the dismantling of any cultural implications for the word. In fact, it seems to be erasing the concept entirely. When the definition of a word becomes tautological it is rendered useless. (i.e., if we don’t know what a woman is, then it’s no clearer if we define a woman as “someone who is a woman”).

We must now say “pregnant people”[2] or “birthing person” to not offend those that embrace the new non-definition of woman.  As that definition erodes, the science follows.  Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

This is not a new problem for our progressive society. The redefinition of love[3] into tautology has eroded trust in truth[4], made sexual experience only about consent, and opened the doors for polyamory, bestiality, and even pedophilia. Most recently, our culture has chosen to do the same to the word marriage, and what is worse, many conservatives simply go along with it.

What is a Marriage?

In 2015 the Supreme Court unilaterally decided to change the definition of marriage[5] and recently, Congress followed suit by ratifying the ironically named Respect for Marriage Act[6] in which the legality of gay marriage is codified into federal law. Leaving aside (what should be) the obvious religious liberty complications, the redefinition of marriage, while trivial to some, is a defining moment in the history of this nation.

Marriage is one of those words that has provided the foundation for society for hundreds of years, and not just western society. Much ink has been spilled about what it means for a secular society to redefine marriage.[7] The secular arguments are important because they rest at the heart of society. Marriage, in principle, is the union between two adult human beings, for life, based on the principle of procreation. Alan Keyes, in this debate with Barak Obama in 2004 puts it succinctly:

When the moderator presses the issue with exceptions (elderly couples, infertility, etc.) Keyes does not bat an eye. The idea of procreation being principally possible in marriage is not undermined by outliers and does not open the door for impossibilities. Surrogate procreation, which many homosexual couples have turned to,[8] helps to prove Keyes’ point. The impossibility of natural procreation, in principle, within the confines of homosexual partnership turns procreation into a consumeristic experience rather than a foundational building block for society.

But this redefinition of marriage goes deeper than procreation. It goes straight to the heart of parenthood. Statistics show that children growing up in a two parent (mother and father) household “do better.”[9] The foundational elements of western society are dependent on a majority of children growing up under the direction and nurture of a father and mother. Again, there are outliers within the data, but the principle here stands firm on the scientific evidence. Marriage, as defined throughout history, is foundational for a functioning and moral society.

That is not to say that there is no possibility of same-sex unions providing stable and loving environments where children will thrive and grow into functional members of society, but it is to say that without the foundation of marriage, as historically defined, this possibility becomes far more remote.

Secular History of Marriage?

Those who study history know this full well. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels built a key tenant of their argument on the destruction of the nuclear family.[10] They understood that the keys to overturning the structures of society rested in redefining the foundational institutions of said society: “Theoretically, any sexual relationship between mutually consenting persons would be possible. What would not be possible would be the security of a life-long marriage. This sexual relationship could not be chosen.”[11]

It is for this reason that the Black Lives Matter movement embraced the destruction of the nuclear family, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”[12] There is a deeper and more sinister work at play in dismantling the family system founded by the God.

I say founded by God because it is so, and again, Marx and Engels understood this well. If they could dismantle religion[13]and disrupt the institution of the family the revolution would naturally occur.

Scripture on Marriage

Beyond the secular arguments there stands the argument based on the truths of scripture.  How the church ought to define marriage, fight for marriage, and interact with culture on the topic of marriage is of the utmost import. The Respect for Marriage Act will force churches across the nation to choose a side and prepare for direct confrontation. First amendment protections are not clearly defined (this is a feature of the bill, not a bug) and thus, the tax-exempt status of conservative churches that embrace biblical values will come under scrutiny.

I am not going to argue for the tax-exempt status of the church, but I will argue that the American church will have to choose, possibly for the first time, whether to confront the government head on and deal with the consequences therein or toe the political line. There are, of course, issues that do not call for the church to be confrontational, but the abolition of traditional marriage is not one of them.

The biblical case for marriage is powerful and simple.  Many progressive objectors point to the ubiquitous presence of polygamy within the Bible as a contradiction of the traditional marriage values orthodox Christians espouse. This dishonest trope fails (or refuses) to recognize the difference between prescriptive and descriptive text.

God establishes the marriage covenant at the outset of Creation: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24). Jesus affirms this definition in Matthew 19:5-6. Paul affirms it as a qualification for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:2, as a picture of Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:21-33 and refers back to in clarifying the relationship of husband and wife in 1 Corinthians 7.

But what About All the Polygamy in the Old Testament?

Good question. Polygamy is handled much like slavery in scripture, it is not endorsed by God, but it is regulated.  The regulation comes with intention of future eradication. Exodus 21:7-11 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 offer these regulations. However, many Jewish scholars believe Leviticus 18:18 might prohibit it directly.[14]

As David Wilbur says: “…We can understand the Torah’s polygamy legislation as representing not God’s perfect will but his response to the realities of a fallen world. In the beginning, polygamy, like divorce, “was not so.” Marriage in creation was a monogamous union.”[15]

The first case of polygamy in scripture is noted as an aberration in Genesis 4:19. Lamech was the great-great-great grandson of Cain. It took five generations from the Fall for humanity to introduce the concept of polygamy and everywhere that polygamy and sexual deviancy followed so did turmoil. From Abraham and his concubine to Lot and his daughters, to Jacob and his wives, we find that sexual sin is the direct result of rebellion (Romans 1).

Why this foray into polygamy as we seek to defend the definition of traditional marriage?  Simple. As the polygamy of the Old Testament affirms, the dismantling of the institution of marriage carries with it dire consequences. One of the themes of the Old Testament is that of humanity’s rebellion in all of God’s designs. Marriage is no exception.  We find similar issues throughout Israel’s history; the multiple marriages and sexual sins of Israel’s monarchy are directly related to dysfunction in the Royal family and in the nations of Israel and Judah themselves.

This is why Jesus calls the church his Bride. There is a reestablishment of God’s purposes in the language of marriage.  It is one of the only human institutions ordained by God prior to the fall that is carried over into the church age by Jesus Christ himself. The orthodox view of marriage ties us back to the original design of the garden.  The redefinition of marriage in our culture carries with it a similar harbinger of things to come as Lamech’s choice to marry two women in Genesis 4. In Genesis 6 we find the world in wicked disarray. That is not necessarily because of Lamech’s choice to marry two women, but the dismantling of the institution was a symptom of a wider and more insidious problem. The wickedness of the heart.

So it is with our own society. The redefinition of marriage into a mere commitment based on a tautology. Marriage has become a contract concerning two consenting individuals that love each other and want to spend their lives together (so long as it is convenient, annulment of the marriage is simple enough when things get hard). What is love? Well, love is love.  Affection and desire.  Emotive infatuation.  A lifetime commitment based on absurdity, and we wonder why divorce is rampant.

But if love is love and consent is all that matters who is to say that man-beast[16] marriage is immoral? Or man-child marriage? Or polygamy? You might scoff, as many have, and glibly assure me that this slippery slope is only in my mind, but a New York judge recently ruled in favor of polyamory.[17] If a 5-year-old can choose his/her own gender and can consent to treatment what is to keep him/her from consenting to sex with a 30-year-old? Love is love. How can a child be wise enough to understand his own gender transition needs[18] but not wise enough to consent in a romantic relationship?  The rebranding of pedophilia to Minor Attracted Persons (or MAP) indicates the movement is already gaining steam.[19]

As Christians we must allow scripture to define our terms. That includes marriage. As Christopher Watkin and Tim Keller explain:

“…language both expresses and forms a world. To use particular language is to live in a particular world. This is also a reason for Christians, wherever practicable, to use biblical language to describe the world. The Bible’s categories of creation, sin, grace, idolatry, and so on are not neutral and interchangeable with other sets of terms; they are particular figures that belong to and provide the rhythm for the Bible’s account of reality.”[20]

We ought to fight for the civil respect of God honoring definitions.[21] If we want our society to thrive, we ought to implore our civil authorities to abide by God’s definitions.  We cannot do as David French did and acquiesce to the gods of pluralist society.[22]

The defense of marriage is the defense of a god-honoring society. It is not the only thing to defend but it is a foundational thing to defend.  We must stand firm.

Endnotes

[1] https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman; https://freethinkingministries.com/movie-review-what-is-a-woman/

[2] https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/inclusive-gender-neutral-language

[3] https://www.bustle.com/p/8-lgbtq-activists-share-what-love-is-love-means-to-them-in-donald-trumps-america-7278041

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

[5] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/

[6] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404

[7] https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/marriage-what-it-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-redefining-it

[8] https://surrogate.com/about-surrogacy/types-of-surrogacy/can-lgbt-couples-pursue-surrogacy/

[9] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/children-do-better-when-raised-in-intact-two-parent-homes/

[10] https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf

[11] Ibid., pg. 669

[12] https://uca.edu/training/files/2020/09/black-Lives-Matter-Handout.pdf

[13] https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/

[14] https://davidwilber.com/articles/does-the-torah-prohibit-polygamy

[15] https://davidwilber.com/articles/understanding-the-torahs-polygamy-regulations

[16] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1328310

[17] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/10/new-york-judge-rules-favor-polyamorous-relationships/

[18] https://freethinkingministries.com/gender-identity-the-bible-and-the-christian/

[19] https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/allyn-walker-says-attraction-to-children-isnt-immoral/

[20] Christopher Watkin and Timothy Keller, “Humanity,” Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2023), 100–101.

[21] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-right-christian-nationalism/

[22] https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/6377fb0dce44df0038de4c62/respect-for-marriage-same-sex-religious-freedom/


Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3Kuy6K2

 

By Josh Klein

As we enter the final section of the critique of the objections to the Orthodox view of homosexual activity as a sin, it is important to note, again, why I am spending a significant amount of time on these particular points. The rallying cry of the liberal theologian has been grace, mercy, and love, but as I set out in part one, [i] believe that true grace, mercy, and love must be grounded in the Truth set forth in God’s word. To have adequate compassion we cannot admit falsehood.

We know this to be true intrinsically. 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 is wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to stop him from jumping even if it makes him cry, angry, or hate you? A good parent doesn’t even need to consider the issue. The correct response to the situation is natural.

Likewise, we must confront the sinful habits in our own lives and the falsehoods in the world. We cannot be compassionate toward the child as he allows it to plummet to its death, and we cannot be compassionate toward fellow believers as we watch them sink 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 that foundation.

The following are just a sampling of other objections I have interacted with in my time of ministry. I believe we must respond to each of them with grace and truth, and any subsequent arguments should be handled in the same manner. I have attempted to do so here. I pray God has given me the power to succeed in that endeavor. I responded to one of the more technical objections in last week’s article. [ii]

Homosexuality is as much of a sin as eating shellfish in the Bible

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

This, of course, is an argument for Christians to continue eating shrimp and shellfish but not agree that the homosexual act is good/correct even though both come from the same book of the Bible. In Leviticus 11 we find that God prohibits the consumption of shellfish to his people, likewise, only seven chapters later in Leviticus 18 God prohibits men from sleeping with men and women from sleeping with women, going so far as to call the act an abomination.

The difference in language between these two things is paramount to understanding. While the Hebrews are to abhor shellfish, they are not commanded to abhor those who consume shellfish, but shellfish itself. Consuming shellfish is detestable, but it is not an “abomination,” but God calls sodomy (homosexuality) an abomination. We also find God removing the believer’s dietary restrictions (as well as the eternal restrictions of faith!) from Peter in Acts 10:9-16, but God does not do the same with homosexuality.

Some may try to include homosexuality in the interpretation of Acts 10, but the early church certainly did not. It seems that Peter and other apostles saw this view as a double permission for the consumption of food and for God to bring salvation to the Gentiles without forcing them to convert to Judaism first.

Furthermore, God had clearly defined rules for His chosen nation to be set apart from those around them. Quite simply, some of the Old Testament prohibitions were made simply 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 (eating 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, while 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 itself. There is, believe it or not, a hierarchical structure to God’s law.

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

Homosexual wasn’t even a word in the Bible until 1946

We have dealt with this argument a bit in Part 2, [iv] but here we will look at the lay argument. Homosexual was not a word in the English dictionary until the late 19th 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 intercourse. Bible translations tend to lag behind the common vernacular by a significant time interval, so the fact that the first use of homosexual in an English Bible was in the mid-1940s should not come as a significant surprise to anyone if they honestly follow the linguistic history of scripture translations.

Before the 1940s, the word translated homosexual would likely have been translated sodomite or sexually immoral. In fact, as we discovered last week, I think those are still better translations than homosexual in many cases, as 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 is therefore a recent addition to the Bible is disingenuous. The intent of the passages was clear before the 1940s and helped form the decision to insert the word into the translation history after the 1940s. The interpretive history of these passages lent credibility to the use of the word initially and while it is not the best translation currently, I do not think it is a bad translation either, although, given the current cultural context of identity, I would still like to see clarity in the translation toward 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 the meaning could leave out important sin issues such as pedophilia, rape, cohabitation, and more.

God was not wrong when he created me

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

Being born as someone with a disposition toward addiction would not make becoming addicted to painkillers good or right. Similarly, being born as someone with a strong sexual inclination who desires to have multiple sexual partners does not make acting on those desires right and good.

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

Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality is part of the fall, for both men and women. In fact, the entire first section of Romans 1-4 is intended 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 must be read in the context of all human history.

If we read Romans 1 correctly, we will not argue and argue about who was born which way and whether or not homosexuality is a choice. The fact is that homosexuality is a natural consequence of the original fall of man. Sin broke up God’s created order and introduced all kinds of behaviors that could be and have been considered natural, but are, in fact, evil. (I use the word “evil” in the theological sense, i.e. 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 it is also clear that you are a fallen human being with a natural inclination toward sin who needs to be rescued from yourself and your own passions and desires.  Romans 6-8 puts this struggle under the microscope. 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 repaired 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 therefore in sin, and in death. This is why having a dual identity is so problematic. It means that God can remake only part of who we are, because we have removed His impact on our other identity. It is sequestered in a dark closet that His renewal team cannot touch. The exclusivity of Christ is of paramount importance in this discussion, but according to a recently conducted survey [v] of supposed “born-again” Christians, this foundational doctrine is also under attack. Ultimately, compassion without adherence to truth ends 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 anyone to be born, but that does not mean that we are all born perfect either. Two things can be true at once. God may have made a person in a fearfully and wonderful way, and that person may also be hopelessly damaged and beyond repair with natural inclinations toward evil and self-destruction unless God intercedes on his or her behalf. All people are worthy and deserving of love because they are image bearers of the Almighty, but all people are also image bearers broken by sin and must be repaired by their Creator.

I know, because I am. No, I am not a homosexual, but I am an evil depraved person. I need a savior, and I have that in Jesus. This same savior is available to all who will believe, and he will make them a new creation ( 2 Cor. 5:17 ) with the ability to find victory over any sinful proclivity they were born with, because in Jesus we are offered a completely new identity.

A homosexual in a consensual and committed relationship is fulfilling a marriage covenant

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

That being said, it is the hardest to answer because my heart truly aches for those who have such homosexual inclinations who desire to have a meaningful long-term relationship and have children and experience all the good things that come with those relationships. But empathy is all I can offer in that regard because the scriptures seem to be clear on the issue, and I don’t know a married couple who can (or should) abstain from sex in order to maintain a pure relationship. If my answers to the previous two sections are biblically correct, then the answer to this objection becomes obvious. And as we’ll see next week, there are many professing gay Christians who agree with this. Some resources are noted below.

So what?

I’m sure I haven’t covered all of the TikTok takes in the previous sections. I’m sure there are many more, but let’s move on. What then is the church’s responsibility? In part four I want to look at a better way to handle these things than what the church has done in recent generations. I think the church has fallen short in ministry to those who struggle in this area, and while I don’t have all the answers, I think we can begin to walk the path in a better way. One thing the book I mentioned in part 3 gets right is this: I think the church’s treatment of homosexuality has been short-sighted and graceless for many decades, and this needs to change (and is changing), but it needs to change without compromising the Truth.

Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.

Footnotes

[i] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-1/

[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/

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

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/

[v] https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/church/survey-60-percent-of-born-again-christians-under-40-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation/

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.

Original Source: https://bit.ly/3UC2BQ2 

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega

 

By Josh Klein

The Church of Satan was started by Anton Lavey in 1966[i] as an atheistic religious organization focused on hedonism and lawful citizenry. Adherents to the Church of Satan claim not to believe in Satan or worship him but to strive for what they call “ethical egoism.”  Ironically, Satan’s most effective tool against humanity is not convincing people to worship him, but to worship themselves in leu of the Almighty God.

Whether Lavey knew it or not, in effect, he did establish a church of Satan that worships the very thing Satan wishes it would.  It matters not to Satan what people think of him, but if he can get people to believe in themselves and scoff at the idea of God then his mission is accomplished.

In the garden, Satan never asks Eve to worship him, he simply seeks to destroy Eve’s relationship with her creator.

It is not this obvious satanic movement that threatens the church of America, but a different, more insidious and pernicious Church of Satan that has snuck into the mainstream religious institutions of the day. The true Church of Satan hides in plain sight. Satan’s real strategy against the Bride of Christ is the same as his strategy in the garden and we must call it out for what it is lest we stand idly by as Adam did and watch people be deceived.  You might think this overdramatic, but history and scripture indicate that it is not.  The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18[ii]), but Satan is building a bride for himself within what people consider to be the church in the West and, save for a few, it is rarely challenged with courage.

The church in America is quickly falling into apostacy.  According to a recent study, 60% of self-described American Christians under the age of 40 believe that Jesus is not the only way of salvation.[iii]  Which, one would think, would disqualify them from calling themselves Christians, at least that’s what Jesus would seem to indicate when he said no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6[iv]).

In many cases these mainline Christian denominations are not merely getting sin wrong, they are perverting the gospel by glorifying sin, reveling in it, and using scripture to double down on a gospel of affirmation rather than repentance and belief in Christ.

In the 2000s the Episcopalian church in America ordained the first transgender Priest and in 2021 the ELCA ordained their first transgender bishop[v].

In May of 2022 a United Methodist Church in Madison, Wisconsin held a Pride celebration event.[vi]

In December of 2021 a Lutheran church in Chicago had a pastor deliver a message to children dressed in Drag.[vii]

In August of 2022 the First Christian Church in Austin, Texas hosted a “family friendly” Drag Show for the community.[viii]

Most recently though, a United Methodist Church in Florida hosted an Atheist Drag Queen Pastor[ix] (yes, you read that right)[x] for their service, and, particularly, to share his story with the children in the church.

To the Christian the most alarming part of this video should not be the drag queen standing in the church but the “Pastor’s” use of scripture to justify Ms. Penny Cost’s lifestyle as godly:

“Well one of the things that I think is great about miss Penny Cost is that she reminds us that we follow a god who calls us to not conform to the things of this world. That we’re supposed to be transformed by the renewal of our minds, and that means that what I think today may have to change tomorrow if I continue to renew my mind. And it’s so cool that we serve a god that calls us to continue to grow and to continue to change into something new and to not be bound by the ways that the world confines us sometimes. That we are supposed to live differently.”

If one merely read the words spoken by this “Pastor” one might not see anything wrong with this simple directive towards children.  He quotes scripture, directs them to live contrary to the world, and encourages them to live differently. That seems to be in line with historic Christian belief.  This is, however, the oldest trick in the Satanic book. That is not hyperbole.

To use scripture in a way that justifies the pride of life and licentious behavior is the very tactic Satan used with Eve in the garden, and the very tactic he used again in the temptation of Jesus. Satan is not afraid to use scripture to get what he most desires.  He prowls the sidelines waiting for an opportune moment to devour the weak, and he does just that with the misinterpretation and application of scripture (1 Peter 5:8[xi]). If the Devil can get people to believe they are saved through heretical use of scripture, only to embrace the wrong gospel, his digestion is complete and they are doomed.

Jesus hints at this reality himself when he says that not everyone who says to him, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21[xii]).  There are many that will engage in mercy missions, philanthropy, clothing and feeding the poor, that will have embraced a false gospel that does not save.  This false gospel is Satan’s go to weapon against the church.  Satan does not need Anton Lavey to establish his church. He simply needs to get those that call themselves the church to buy into a gospel of lies and self-fulfillment.

A tail as old as time.

In the garden, the serpent misquotes God to challenge Eve to think only of herself and find fulfillment and hope in creation rather than the Creator (Genesis 3[xiii], Romans 1[xiv]).  In Matthew 4:6[xv] we find Satan again using scripture to try to tempt Jesus in the wilderness.  Satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12[xvi] seemingly to get Jesus to misapply scripture to inflate his own ego above the Father’s plan. Jesus, of course, does not fall for it.

John Piper puts it this way:

“Note well! Satan does not always try to ruin faith by saying, ‘The Bible isn’t true.’ He often tries to destroy our faith by affirming some passage and using it to lead us into disobedience.”[xvii]

If Satan used scripture to entice Eve, and again to seek to derail the redemptive work of God through Jesus, would he not use scripture to create for himself a church of ineffectual sin laden imposters? This is the spirit of antichrist, and it is taking the American church by storm.

The spirit of the antichrist affirms sin, encourages debasement, and blasphemes the name of Jesus (1 John 1:7, 2:18-22, 4:3). The video above accomplishes all these things in the space of fifty seconds. The Devil’s plans to subvert the church are obvious, but his appeal to the nature and pride of mankind blinds many to it.  The misapplication and interpretation of Romans 12:1-2 gives away the Satanic game. We read in 1 John 2:15-24 just the opposite of what this pastor is speaking:

“15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”

This is a sobering reminder that our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the dark forces of this world (Ephesians 6:12). It is no longer tenable to call this progressive movement in churches Christian.  These are not progressive Christians, they are progressive antichristians. They hold on to a form of godliness yet deny its power (2 Timothy 3:1-5), they are swayed by and leading people astray into empty, deceitful philosophies according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world (Colossians 2:8), and they love what is evil and hate what is good (Romans 12:9).

The Satanic church is all around us and claiming Christ as their own in order to obfuscate the gospel.  We must not acquiesce or give quarter to such blatant apostacy.  Paul says we should have nothing to do with them (2 Timothy 3:5) and Jesus indicates that such men, claiming to be agents of the Lord, will experience an even harsher judgment than others (Luke 17:2).

I want to be clear, my quibble is not against those attracted by this false gospel.  My heart breaks for them.  The reason the Christian church’s response to such heresy ought to be swift and decisive is for them. Filled with mercy, patience, and grace (Jude 1:22-24).  The question they are asking is a legitimate one: “How can I be happy, fulfilled, full of purpose?” The answer is there to be had and confused individuals must be met with love, understanding, encouragement, and most importantly, truth.

We must call these people to repentance; we must not allow them to glory in their sin and pervert the gospel.  Winsomeness is not a tool to tolerate blasphemy but to attract those seeking answers. It is winsome to call out error and preach repentance in Christ (Romans 2:4).

The true Church is to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16).  Salt preserves the godliness of the generations and light exposes the deeds of darkness (1 John 1).

We can give no quarter to those that would pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a time for boldness in the faith, and that time is now, and if we are ridiculed, persecuted, or derided for our faithfulness to the true gospel then we are in good company (Hebrews 11, Acts 5:42, 2 Timothy 3:11-12, Matthew 5:10-12).

We must start calling these types of progressive churches what they are, and we must not apologize, because it is true kindness to shed light on the deeds of darkness to beseech them to repent and return to the love they have lost (1 Corinthians 5:5, Revelation 2).

I think Kevin DeYoung put it well:

Stay strong. Fight the good fight, finish the course, and keep the faith.

(2 Timothy 4:7-8)

Footnotes

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

[ii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18&version=NET

[iii] https://www.christianpost.com/news/60-of-young-adults-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation.html

[iv] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A6&version=NET

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Partridge#:~:text=Cameron%20Partridge%20(born%201973)%20is,National%20Cathedral%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C. –

 https://www.npr.org/2021/09/11/1036371531/evangelical-lutheran-church-first-transgender-bishop-megan-rohrer

[vi] https://madison365.com/sherman-church-to-celebrate-pride-month-with-pride-month-flag-raising-ceremony/

[vii] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lutheran-church-offers-drag-queen-prayer-time-to-children

[viii] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/neighborhood/katy/article/church-lgbtq-drag-shows-17395546.php

[ix] https://www.mspennycost.com/

[x] https://www.theblaze.com/news/drag-queen-pastor-god-is-nothing

[xi] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+5%3A8&version=NET

[xii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21&version=NET

[xiii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NET

[xiv] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NET

[xv] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A6&version=NET

[xvi] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+91%3A11-12&version=NET

[xvii] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/satans-bible-knowledge

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3X2WW7X 

 

By Josh Klein

What is a Woman?

Seems like an easy enough question to answer, but these days, apparently, it’s a stumper! Conservative commentator, author, and part-time Virginian, Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire seeks to answer this seemingly innocuous question in a documentary released on June 1st.

It is no coincidence that the release coincided with the first day of “Pride Month.” Unfortunately, one needs to be a paying member of The Daily Wire to access the film, but, in my humble opinion, it is quite worth it.

You can access the film here: LINK

If you are teetering on the edge, deciding whether it is worth your time and money, hopefully this review will help you in your decision. Much can be written about this documentary, but the written word does not have the same effect as watching the film itself. Regardless of your position on the topic, I believe it is a film worth viewing.

In a nutshell, Matt Walsh and The Daily Wire have carefully crafted a thoughtful and humorous documentary that seeks to take the subject matter of transgenderism seriously but does not shy away from the absurdity of the worldview either.

What is a Woman – Film Review

What is a Woman? is a 90 minute documentary about the transgender movement, and its ideological framework and targeting of children.

What the Film Does Well – THE INTERVIEWS

Somehow, Matt Walsh, a well-known conservative[1] talk show host and author[2][3] was able to convince members of the far left in academia, the medical field, and the mental health sphere to sit down in an interview for a movie. This is a feat in and of itself.  One wonders, did these individuals really not know who Matt Walsh was and did he enter the interviews under false pretense?  The answer to the latter is likely yes, but then again, perhaps those he interviewed genuinely thought the logic and knowledge was on their side.

Regardless of how the interviews were accomplished the product was stunning.  The production was high quality, although, the first 5-10 minutes leave something to be desired (more on that later).

Walsh interviews a bevy of so-called “experts” in the field of gender sciences.  The film’s opening interview is with a woman named Gert Comfrey[4], a non-binary gender affirming therapist with a Master of Theological Studies from Vanderbilt university.  Gert, obviously a woman, claims during the interview that she cannot answer the question, “what is woman” because she’s, “not a woman.”

Gert’s interview was one of the least shocking in the film, however, one could say that it is shocking that someone can graduate from two “Christian universities” and come out with an aversion to God’s created order.

Walsh does a great job of letting those on the side of the LGBTQ+ agenda explain their own ideology and he presses them on the absurdities when the opportunity presents itself, but he does so calmly and with an apparent will to listen, though his frustration bubbles to the surface on occasion.

Interspersed between “expert” interviews are also “man on the street” interviews with normal, everyday people.  In one of the more eyebrow raising and hilarious moments of the film Walsh is interviewing a woman on the street that claims, rather vehemently, that gay men (especially) have no right to answer the question “what is a woman” because they are not women.  She insists that only those that identify as women can tell a person what a woman is.  Walsh presses the issue by asking her if she is a cat, she says no, and then he asks her if she can explain what a cat is even though she is not one.  Caught in her absurdity, rather than admit the flaws in her logic, she states that agreeing to the interview was a mistake and goes on her way. And then, almost as if Walsh could hear the retorts coming from the opposition, later in the film, he interviews a woman that believes she is a wolf.  It seems gender is now inter-species, so the question he asked initially was warranted. A brilliant move by director Justin Folk.

In three other interviews, with Dr. Marci Bowers[5], Dr. Michelle Forcier[6] and Dr. Patrick Grzanka[7] Walsh exposes the dangerous beliefs espoused in gender ideology with simple questions.  Two of these interviewees, Forcier and Grzanka, threaten to end interviews after questions become direct and difficult to respond to.  Grzanka, in particular, becomes flustered and quickly offended by the word truth. When Walsh presses the issue of “getting to the truth” Grzanka replies with:

“Yeah… well I’m really uncomfortable with that language of, like, getting to the truth.”

Walsh then asks why that makes him uncomfortable and he responds with this:

“It sounds, actually, deeply transphobic to me and if you keep probing, we’re going to stop the interview… You keep invoking the word truth which is condescending and rude.”

Using the word “invoking” gives away the game.  This is a religion, and you must not invoke the wrong incantations lest you undo decades of his work.  I am only kidding… sort of.

Grzanka also says that “when someone tells you who they are you should believe them” early in the interview before admitting later in the interview that it is “well established that human beings can lie” and when Walsh says, “well not even lie, just be mistaken,” he agrees.  Which would logically cast doubt into whether or not one should actually believe a person when he/she tells you “who they are.”

Forcier, on the other hand, threatens to end the interview after Walsh asks about her prescribing Lupron as a puberty blocker (which she readily admits to) which is used to chemically castrate sex offenders.[8] She, like Grzanka, accuses Walsh of using disturbing language in his statements.  However, she never contradicts his claims. She too, seems offended by the “invoking” of truth.  One of the more odd exchanges of the movie highlights the lengths to which gender ideologues will go for supposed intellectual consistency.

Dr. Bowers is dealt similar blows, though she remains composed and aloof when she is brought face to face with the reality that gender-affirming surgery is similar to trans-abled affirming surgery.  However, she fails to see the similarity and dismisses the comparison outright.  Even calling those that deal with BIID[9] “kooky” while she simultaneously admits to cutting off the healthy breasts and mutilating the healthy genitals of a healthy 16-year-old girl under the guise of “Gender affirming surgery.”

In stark contrast to the gender ideologues, Walsh interviews quite a few on the other side of the debate. He does not change demeanor when interviewing the other side even though his position reflects their own. The two stars of those interviews are Dr. Miriam Grossman[10] a psychologist who provides a much-needed foundational discussion on the work of Alfred Kinsey[11] and John Money[12] in relation to gender ideology, and Scott Nugent[13], a biological woman that presents as a man, whose passion for the topic and knowledgeable understanding of the processes are eye opening. Visit TReVoices[14] website for a veritable goldmine of information and talking points against gender ideology arguments. Scott’s interviews in particular were a stunning repudiation of the gender-identity movement.  One could say that Scott alone tore down the house of cards that Money and Kinsey built.

 

The addition of Jordan Peterson and Carl Trueman[15] to the documentary is the cherry on top of the interview section.  Watch for yourself and then explore more deeply what both of these men have had to say on the topic.  Trueman’s book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self is an academic treatment of similar issues and the exploration of where they come from.

PRODUCTION

The production and direction of What is a Woman? is top notch.  The Daily Wire’s team was able to string together questions and generate an overall story arc from beginning to end that is coherent, gets to the point, and leaves one asking, “what can I do to fight this?” The film jumps between interviews, each segment used to set up the next.

They also do a great job at keeping the story moving and not allowing the gravitas of the subject matter to get too heavy for the audience.  There is enough humor to relieve some tension but enough harrowing details to create consternation. This had the quality of a high budget documentary and is, in my opinion, better than anything Michael Moore has ever done. And infinitely more honest.

A very underrated piece of the film, in my view, was the conversation around transgenders in athletics.  The audacity of one transgender activist to say that there is no real evidence of transgender women dominating women’s sports was palpable, and made more powerfully so with the juxtaposition of a film reel that featured transgender athletes easily defeating biological women in various events.  Almost as if to say, “Who are you going to believe?  This activist or your lying eyes?” Dr. Debra Soh, author of “The End of Gender” contradicts the activist’s point as well when she says, “in a few years there won’t be female sports anymore, there will be male and transgender sports.”

Anton Seim knocked the cinematography out of the park and made the movie visually stunning.

Finally, in a fitting conclusion, Matt Walsh’s seeming frustration with the inability to coherently answer his question leads into a final segment in which he goes on the offensive. No spoilers here.

CRITIQUES

The film opens with Walsh narrating as an introduction. At one point, Walsh stands at the edge of a lake and casts a fishing line into the water where he says:

“The truth is, I’m not very good at fishing.  But, what is truth?  Is there a truth?  Is this what progress looks like? Can my boys really become girls?”

This was supposedly the impetus to asking the question of a gender identity affirming therapist but seemed a bit over the top and cheesy.  Maybe that was the point but ultimately it did not seem to fit with where the rest of the film was taking the viewer.

Many will point to the traveling to Africa to “own the libs” as a positive, and the ploy definitely has merits in pointing out the logical and unscientific absurdities of the other side. It was also a way to “own the libs” in their own intersectional traps.  However, Walsh also chose a tribe known for their own mutilation of women in contravention of Kenyan law.  This form of Female Genital Mutilation is a rite of passage for girls to become women.  And while there has been a recent movement to eliminate the tribal tradition[16], it remains in practice still today.  This opens up a fair critique of Walsh’s film from the left, however, it could be a critique that he turns around for his own use.  If genital mutilation is abhorrent across cultures perhaps top and bottom surgery to “affirm” gender identity in the U.S. is equally abhorrent?

There is also a critique coming from the left concerning what some call “Child Pornography” in the film.  During a portion in which Walsh is addressing the societal and social media trendiness of gender identity the film shows multiple videos of topless young women having revealed their “top surgeries” for the world to see on Instagram and TikTok.  However, the very fact that Instagram and TikTok allow these videos to even exist at all is the point of the section.  If anyone should be on the hook for child pornography because of these videos it is them. I would say, in fairness, that blurring out certain aspects might have held off this critique, but maybe not.  Walsh has, before, on his podcast blurred out faces and body parts of children so as not to subject them to public scrutiny.  Perhaps the same could have been done here?

One small area that is lacking as well, is a foray into how gender ideology has started to seep even into the Church. Perhaps it would have been too much for one film but I would have liked to see a theological component to the movie as well, as there are deep spiritual undertones to the ideology that is being foisted upon our culture.  In fact, demon and demonself  were used as preferred pronouns in one clip shown in the film. Walsh is an unabashed Catholic, and I feel like he maybe missed an opportunity here to shed light on the demonic forces among us and in our churches.[17]

Finally, the fact that this movie lies behind a paywall is somewhat of an inconvenience.  The lack of ability to individually purchase the film apart from becoming a Daily Wire member feels like an interesting and myopic choice.  I do not regret paying for a membership and seeing the film but many who might need to see it but are on the center left might not see it due to needing to become a member of The Daily Wire to obtain viewing permissions.  I do not believe The Daily Wire should ever release this sort of content for free but opening up viewing options from multiple angles would have increased the credibility of the film itself in my opinion.

Final Assessment

What is a Woman? is necessary viewing across the political spectrum.  It is thought provoking, logical and bent towards the truth (even if truth can feel condescending and rude to some).  Matt Walsh plays his part impeccably and the visuals are on par with any other big budget documentary. Maybe better.

My wife even commented once, “how does he keep a straight face” after Walsh told a congressman men that “There are people that kind of, have really bought into the rumor that only men have penises. How do we account for that and how do you respond to that?” With complete sincerity.

Those on the gender ideological side of the aisle seem to rest in tautologies to define the word woman (A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman – a circular definition) without the ability to define the term woman itself. I will not spoil the ending of the film, but, suffice it to say that the way the word woman is finally defined at the end is both logical and humorous.

A month long subscription to The Daily Wire is more than worth the watch in my view.

I give it a 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Footnotes

[1] https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-matt-walsh-show

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Johnny-Walrus-Matt-Walsh/dp/1956007059/ref=sr_1_1?

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Church-Cowards-Wake-Up-Complacent-Christians/dp/B081VPW7PM/ref=sr_1_1?

[4] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/gert-comfrey-nashville-tn/443327

[5] https://marcibowers.com/

[6] https://vivo.brown.edu/display/mforcier#

[7] https://psychology.utk.edu/faculty/grzanka.php

[8] https://askdrbrown.org/library/how-dare-we-support-chemical-castration-children

[9] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19132621/ (Body Integrity Identity Disorder)

[10] https://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/

[11] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Charles-Kinsey

[12] https://kinseyinstitute.org/about/profiles/john-money.php

[13] https://twitter.com/trevoices?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[14] https://www.trevoices.org/

[15] Trueman, Carl R., and Rod Dreher. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Crossway, 2020.

[16] https://plan-international.org/kenya/case-studies/the-maasai-elder-advocating-to-end-female-genital-mutilation/

[17] https://www.npr.org/2021/09/11/1036371531/evangelical-lutheran-church-first-transgender-bishop-megan-rohrer

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original blog post: https://bit.ly/3R9plW9

 

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 3rd 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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original blog post: https://bit.ly/3FvkIBd

 

By Maggie Hendrick

Apologetics, when done with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), is beneficial in evangelism as we see the Holy Spirit use it time and time again in the Scriptures through Paul’s “reasoning” and “persuading” to draw souls to the Lord.  However, in this article, I will show how apologetics in the local church has other benefits: equipping the saints and preventing apostasy.  Of course our entire Christian walk should be dedicated toward evangelism; that is a given.  But, not to sound too inwardly focused, I want to show that apologetics has benefits for the believers themselves and why the local church is the best source to implement them.

Apologetics is Useful in:

Making Disciples

The Great Commission in Matthew 28 commands believers to make disciples, not converts.  This is an important distinction to make for apologetics as it has many benefits and goals.  We know apologetics can be used in evangelism to make converts as Paul did throughout Acts, but it doesn’t stop there.  The church needs to stir up one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), equip the saints for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:12), help them hold their faith firm to the end (Hebrews 3:14), and encourage them to love God with their minds (Matthew 22:37).  Apologetics can be used in all of these, not confined to a classroom or specialty ministry, but all throughout the local church.

The local church is essential in equipping believers. But what are we to be equipped with? Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the WHOLE armor of God so we can stand against the devil’s schemes. Apologetics helps to strengthen our faith, “which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one” and helps us “stand firm” with the “belt of truth.” Many times local churches focus on “the breastplate of righteousness” and the “helmet of salvation”, but we need the full armor of God.

The church stands on God’s Word, and they must compare everything to it. Apologetics is another aid in helping us know our Creator through studying his creation and loving Him with our minds.  Apologetics does not replace Bible Study or preaching, it’s a helpful tool to be used simultaneously to produce richer study and preaching. Thus, it is not only useful in evangelism as Paul used it, but also through making stronger, wiser disciples with a faith built on solid ground.

Evangelism+

Apologetics isn’t just used in the moment of evangelism, but also leading up to it. This is a huge benefit of incorporating apologetics into the church. Fear cripples their congregants more than pastors want to admit. Of course, no matter how much we know, we may still feel nervous before sharing the gospel. However, the confidence in being able to defend our faith, through apologetics, eases those fears and can lead to more gospel conversations and encounters with unbelievers.  I experienced this very thing as a 16 year old girl headed to Utah to share my faith with Mormons. I knew very little, and never wanted to be the one initiating or talking in the conversations. The more I studied, my confidence and ability to share and defend my faith increased. This made me WANT to initiate conversations and continue sharing the gospel even when I got home. Having a congregation who can more effectively and clearly share the gospel, while increasing the number of times they actually share it, should be an encouragement for pastors to embrace apologetics.

If the focus of apologetics in a local church setting is geared towards benefitting believers (not just for reaching unbelievers) the church will have stronger congregants, who can better spur one another on to love and good works. This is because apologetics equips the saints to live out the Christian worldview outside of the church’s walls…which includes evangelism! It is not a means of which believers fight with one another over trivial matters, but rather used to sharpen one another to better withstand the false ideologies and evils of the world.

Preventing Apostasy

“As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away” Matthew 13:20-21

Another important aspect of a local church is to help the saints persevere and hold firm their faith to the end. Apologetics is a helpful tool in preventing apostasy. I have experienced this benefit of apologetics personally. Had I not attended a youth group so committed to equipping us prior to college, I would have been eaten alive at my college. Ultimately, being a Christian at a secular college is HARD. Our sinful hearts sometimes don’t “feel” like living out the Christian faith or even “want” to. But I felt like Peter, when asked by Jesus, if he would like to go away as well. Peter replies: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69) It did not matter how I felt each day, the gospel was true, and my faith was built on truth and not feelings.

A local church may feel that they are growing and that their congregants are evangelizing, so apologetics isn’t needed. I would caution against such a belief because as much as apologetics helps to equip us to share the Good News, it also protects us.  Even if it appears that everyone has a strong faith and aren’t wrestling with doubt, we know that many have left and will leave the faith because they don’t feel like they have a good reason to believe it’s true.

If we are not giving believers good reasons for their faith, it will be much easier for the world to shake it when life gets hard. While discussing apologetics as a way to train, William Lane Craig says: “Unfortunately, our churches have largely dropped the ball in this area. It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war.”[1] The world is at war with us. This is why we need the full armor of God.

Apologetics aids us in formulating sufficient answers to the world’s tough questions. At some point (if not already), we will be faced with tough questions.  If our faith resembles a blind faith, or is built upon feelings, it can be more easily shaken.  Therefore, the local church must cultivate strong faiths in their congregants so that they “may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

How Might Pastors Incorporate Apologetics?

Everyone has questions. Only those who know everything won’t have questions, and that of course, is none of us.  Even pastors and church leaders have questions…and questions are a good thing!  The local church should encourage their congregation to ask questions at church so they can come alongside them in finding quality answers.  Pastors ought to share questions they’ve had, how they found answers (within the church body and not the world), and even invite his congregants to ask him questions to emphasize the benefits of asking and faithfully seeking truth.  This type of culture within a church will lead to loving God with their minds, and not shrink in doubt. After all, we know JESUS IS THE TRUTH and therefore know we have true and genuine answers to give. No need to be scared of the questions when truth is on our side.

Apologetics can be implemented in all teaching ministries at a local church. Of course they can do specific series on apologetic topics or host apologetic events, but apologetics can be brought into all areas without disregarding expository preaching. Find time in all teaching moments at church to pull in some apologetics.  Even if it isn’t blatant apologetics, it is about creating a culture where congregants can grow in their knowledge of the Lord, while getting their questions or doubts addressed within the church walls.

If Not for You, Do it for them

As I have discussed many benefits to apologetics in a local church and practical ways to implement it, I cannot stress enough that apologetics must be taught early.  Apologetics isn’t just for adults and shouldn’t be confined to the main pulpit. It shouldn’t even be confined to college or high school students. Apologetics begins when children’s questions begin. As a mother to four young children, I can attest to how early that begins!

We should not answer any of our children’s questions with “because the Bible says so” for the same reason we rejected our own parents’ “reason” of “because I said so”.  These types of explanations didn’t satisfy us then, and they certainly won’t satisfy our children, ESPECIALLY if the question is pertaining to big issues of life and not just why they have to make their bed. John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle write:

“Challenges that undermine the authority of God’s Word cannot go unanswered. And we cannot merely assert that the Bible is the authoritative book from God and hope kids will simply take our word on the matter. Young people must understand the nature of biblical authority. They must have good reasons to trust the Bible as God’s Word.”[2]

We have better answers than “because the Bible says so”, so let’s give them!

Another important reason to start young is because we need to begin before we feel an urgent need to. As J. Warner Wallace writes, “According to the statistics, young Christians decide to abandon the church long before they ever tell anyone and usually before they leave the home of their parents…That’s why it’s so important for us to start early- even before your kids are verbalizing their questions.”[3] Many times, parents get into apologetics when it is too late.  Even if your children do ask you their questions, if we fail to give sufficient answers, they won’t stop asking questions, they’ll just stop asking YOU questions.  We must steer them to the truth in a satisfying and complete way, or we will see them seek answers elsewhere.

Conclusion

Apologetics is needed in the local church, in all ministries, and for all ages.  Even if a believer doesn’t personally believe they need apologetics or good reasons for their own faith, why take the risk and not guard themselves against apostasy that the Bible warns against regularly? And even if they ultimately don’t need apologetics for themselves, someone they love does.  And in order to be a wise “discipler”, we must have good answers to give or risk them turning to the world for answers.

We need apologetics in the local church to equip us to better know and love God with our minds, train and encourage us to evangelize, prepare us to better disciple young believers, and protect us (and others) from the deceitful ideologies of this world and falling into apostasy. The church is responsible for equipping their congregation, and thus, should implement apologetics regularly.

Now let us fasten on the belt of truth and get to work!

[1] William Lane Craig. “Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?: Reasonable Faith.” Who Needs It? Reasonable Faithwww.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/apologetics/christian-apologetics-who-needs-it/.

[2] John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle. A Practical Guide to Culture. David C. Cook, 2020. 309.

[3] Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace. So the Next Generation Will Know. David C Cook, 2019. 41.

c40000

Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download

God’s Crime Scene for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maggie is a stay-at-home wife and mother to her husband Curtis and children Troy (in heaven),Ty, Jay, Palin and Boyd. She received her BA in Religious Studies from Chapman University and her Masters in Christian Apologetics and Evangelism from Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. She currently serves as the Biblical Immersive Experience Coordinator at Maven where she has the joy of planning trips for Christian youth to share their faith with Mormons in Utah. Along with her love for Christian youth and Mormon ministry, she is a pro-life and adoption advocate. She has a deep love for babies and has been nicknamed “the baby whisperer”. You’ll likely find her snuggling on the couch with one of her kiddos while eating bacon and drinking a glass of chocolate milk (Nesquik of course).

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3kwocJS 

 

Por Josh Klein

Anteriormente, examinamos la dicotomía entre lo que significa declarar la actividad homosexual como un pecado y cómo lidian con  ella los que creen en la ortodoxia cristiana.  Abordamos las raíces del movimiento cultural actual e introdujimos la idea de identidad en el argumento.

Era necesario hacer esto para que podamos tener una base sólida donde construir los siguientes argumentos.  Primero debemos saber por qué los teólogos liberales buscan glorificar la homosexualidad como identidad para entender por qué la interpretación de las Escrituras ha pasado de condenar un comportamiento pecaminoso obvio a condonar ese mismo comportamiento.

Si no has leído la primera parte puedes hacerlo aquí.

El objetivo del creyente no debe ser convencer al incrédulo de pecados individuales, como la homosexualidad, sino tratar de persuadir, con el poder del Espíritu Santo, a ese individuo de que él mismo es un pecador y necesita la gracia salvadora de Dios.

Pero una vez que esta persona se convierte en creyente, ¿cómo continúa la conversación sobre la homosexualidad?  Si se les anima a mantener esta identidad además de su nueva identidad en Cristo nos encontramos con que hemos creado creyentes esquizofrénicos que buscan cumplir con el patrón de ser definidos como homosexuales así como hijos de Dios.  Esto puede ser y es una existencia miserable.

En las partes dos y tres de esta serie, examinaremos lo que la teología liberal ha tratado de hacer para aliviar el dolor de esta transición, y en la cuarta parte, examinaré la posibilidad de ofrecer una mejor manera de tratar esta cuestión particular a los que están en línea con la ortodoxia cristiana.

La Iglesia liberal ha tratado de aliviar esta tensión redefiniendo, reinterpretando y reenganchando con las Escrituras el tema.

La nueva teología no suele ser una buena teología y, en mi opinión, así es en este caso.

Los siguientes son sólo una muestra de los argumentos que rondan en TikTok, Instagram, y en la iglesia liberal en relación con el movimiento LGBTQ + (por razones de longitud nos centraremos sólo en la actividad homosexual aquí).  Estas interpretaciones se basan en una cosmovisión de la nueva tolerancia, el amor y la empatía y no sólo son perjudiciales para la cultura, sino, y lo que es más importante, son perjudiciales para la Iglesia y para los individuos que están siendo llevados por tal enseñanza teológica de juego de manos.

Creo que este es el tipo de enseñanza al que se refería Jesús en Mateo 18:6 cuando dijo: “6 Pero al que haga tropezar a uno de estos pequeñitos que creen en mí, mejor le sería que le colgaran al cuello una piedra de molino de las que mueve un asno, y que se ahogara en lo profundo del mar”.

Al repasar estos argumentos es importante recordar que, para los fines de este artículo, estamos teniendo una discusión con supuestos miembros de la misma fe.  Hay que utilizar un criterio diferente con los que están fuera de la fe (1 Corintios 5:12).

Las excepciones a la visión histórica de la homosexualidad en la iglesia vienen bajo el nombre de amor y aceptación y la erudición comienza con esta línea de base.

Seré el primero en admitir que muchos más instruidos que yo llegarán a una comprensión más profunda de la homosexualidad en las Escrituras que no coincide con la mía.  Dicho esto, creo que su punto de partida es encontrar una excepción donde no la hay.  Y como dice el refrán: ”Si buscas algo con la suficiente intensidad, probablemente lo encontrarás”. Parece que parten de la suposición de que si Dios es amor, entonces ciertamente no permitiría que los que ama tuvieran una existencia tan miserable como para vivir con una identidad hostil a su creador.

Podrían estar en parte en lo correcto. Nuestra identidad como pecadores es sin duda ofensiva y profundamente triste para Dios.  Sin embargo, Él hizo algo al respecto: nos ofreció una nueva identidad en Cristo, en lugar de en Adán, mediante la muerte y resurrección de Jesús a favor nuestro.

Tal vez ahora entendamos por qué es tan primordial comprender nuestra identidad aparte de la sexualidad para abrazar verdaderamente el evangelio.  Jesús no promete arreglarnos completamente durante esta vida e incluso garantiza que tendremos problemas (1 Cor. 13:10-12; Juan 16:33).  En pocas palabras, esto significa que cualquier identidad que tengamos aparte de Cristo debe ser sacrificada para ser identificados con y en Cristo.

La teología liberal trata de resolver este problema trasladando los actos particulares de pecado al ámbito de lo sagrado y así, ratificar la identidad anterior como ordenada por Dios.

La nueva teología de la aceptación del pecado hace el truco de convertir una cosa definida como pecado en algo totalmente distinto.  Como veremos, reduce el alcance del pecado sexual de modo que una interpretación de las Escrituras que incluya el acto sexualmente pecaminoso de la homosexualidad o la promiscuidad se considera demasiado amplia.

También hay muchos argumentos simplemente ingenuos en contra de la idea de la homosexualidad como pecado que son fácilmente desmentidos y explicados con un simple estudio de las Escrituras.  Abordaremos primero la objeción más técnica, y en el tema de la próxima semana, pasaremos al resto para ir cerrando  esta serie de cuatro partes.

Nota: Cuando me refiero a la homosexualidad, hablo del ACTO, no de la disposición o la atracción.  Creo que la atracción no es un pecado en sí mismo, pero los pensamientos lujuriosos y las actividades sexuales asociadas con la homosexualidad y con la heterosexualidad (fuera del matrimonio) son definidos bíblicamente como actividades pecaminosas.

La palabra griega traducida como Homosexual debería ser traducida como Pedófilo, por lo tanto la Biblia no habla en contra de las relaciones entre personas del mismo sexo en los idiomas originales.

Pongámonos técnicos.

Esta afirmación hace un argumento sobre las decisiones de traducción sin tener en cuenta la doctrina del pecado históricamente.

Hay algunas palabras traducidas como homosexual en la New American Standard Bible que podrían ser traducidas para significar diferentes cosas.  Un nuevo libro que se publicará en el verano de 2021 llamado Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay[1] (Forjando un arma sagrada: Cómo la Biblia se convirtió en antigay) argumenta que una traducción errónea de 1 Corintios 6:9-10 (junto, presumiblemente, con los otros pasajes de las Escrituras que se traducen como homosexual) es lo que estimuló a toda una generación a la homofobia puritana.  Incluso hay un documental que se estrenará sobre el tema a finales de 2021.

Estos son probablemente los argumentos que mi amigo ha visto en Tik Tok.  La pregunta, entonces, debe ser formulada, ¿es la homosexualidad un pecado y por qué la palabra sería traducida de manera diferente en 1946 de lo que fue  antes?

En primer lugar, abordaremos la principal Escritura que nos ocupa en este nuevo libro.  1 Corintios 6:9 dice lo siguiente

“¿O no sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os dejéis engañar: ni los inmorales, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales

Por cierto, esta misma palabra ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) se utiliza también en 1 Timoteo 1:10 y parece ser una palabra acuñada por el propio Pablo para indicar una relación sexual entre dos personas del mismo sexo.

Es una palabra griega compuesta que combina ἄρρην (arrēn), que significa “varón” u “hombre” y κοίτη (koy’-tay) que significa cama y que a menudo se utiliza como eufemismo para referirse a las relaciones sexuales.  Así, la palabra significa literalmente dos “hombres” que están “en la cama”.

Comúnmente, antes de 1946, este término había sido traducido como sodomita.  Aquellos que desean glorificar las relaciones homosexuales como una actividad aceptable para que los creyentes cristianos participen, leen más profundamente la palabra y creen que Pablo está hablando del uso significativo y repugnante del amor hacia niños en el antiguo mundo griego.  No es un secreto que muchos de los griegos practicaban la pedofilia (amor hacianiños) con chicos jóvenes como procesos de preparación para hombres mayores.

Pero este argumento falla en múltiples aspectos.  En primer lugar, el argumento indica que el lenguaje en torno a la palabra es transaccional, y por lo tanto, el acto sexual es claramente transaccional también (señalando a la prostitución de hombres jóvenes en el templo), pero ese no es el caso.  Los tiempos son claramente conductuales, se trata de personas que realizan actos sexuales y/o adoración de forma voluntaria. El segundo problema es que la suposición de que arrēn significa niño es simplemente incorrecta. παῖς (pais) es la palabra para niño, y la palabra de la que obtenemos pedofilia (literalmente: amor hacia niños). Sí, en el Apocalipsis muchas traducciones insertan la palabra “niño” para aclarar el significado, pero esto no es inherente a la palabra.  Por ejemplo, Apocalipsis 12:13 podría (y posiblemente debería) traducirse igualmente como “persiguió a la mujer que había dado a luz al hijo  varón” sin la palabra niño insertada al final.

La palabra que Pablo acuñó en estos dos pasajes se entiende correctamente y se ha entendido a lo largo de la historia, como una relación sexual entre dos personas del mismo sexo sin importar la edad.

Por lo tanto, estoy a favor de que la traducción refleje la vasta amplitud de la palabra, en lugar de su limitado alcance.  ¿Condena este pasaje las relaciones sexuales homosexuales?  Sí.  ¿Condena también la pedofilia? Sí.

Dado que Pablo está acuñando el término, parece que está buscando crear un paraguas para un acto sexual que es considerado pecaminoso por Dios. Muchos defensores de la teoría de la pederastia indican que Pablo podría haber utilizado un término diferente, el problema con esta sugerencia es doble.  Ambas palabras griegas comunes para hombre son demasiado genéricas para indicar lo que Pablo estaba tratando de transmitir. Tanto Anthropos como Anēr pueden utilizarse como términos genéricos para todas las personas.  Arrēn, sin embargo, no puede serlo.

El otro problema de esta teoría radica en el contexto del Antiguo Testamento.  Hay un problema de “pérdida en la traducción” para muchos cuando estudian el Antiguo Testamento y el Nuevo.  Piensan que Pablo habría leído el Antiguo Testamento hebreo.  Y lo habría hecho, pero en sus escritos, Pablo cita casi exclusivamente la Septuaginta (la traducción griega de las Escrituras hebreas). Esto proporciona otro obstáculo para la teoría de la pederastia.  En la traducción griega de Levítico 18:22, encontramos que el término utilizado para varón es arrēn y el término utilizado para “acostarse con” es koitē. Es razonable deducir entonces, que Pablo está juntando estas dos palabras como resultado directo de su uso en la traducción de la LXX (el AT griego) de Levítico 18.  Lo que indicaría que Pablo creería que sus lectores se dirigirían a ese pasaje.  Y esto tiene sentido, ya que Pablo no explica la palabra recién acuñada, sino que creía que sus lectores simplemente entenderían a qué se refería.

Sin embargo, el problema sigue siendo cómo traducir mejor esta palabra en español.

Creo que una mejor traducción para usar en la situación es Sodomita o ir completamente a lo concreto con “los hombres tienen sexo con los hombres”.  Cuya etimología proviene de las ciudades de Sodoma y Gomorra en el Génesis.  Es probable que conozcas la historia, pero aquí tienes un resumen: Dios va a destruir Sodoma y Gomorra por su orgullo y arrogancia y su cultura degenerada y malvada.  Él envía ángeles para investigar y Lot (sobrino de Abraham) los salva de ser violados sexualmente por los lugareños, incluso ofreció sus propias hijas a los hombres de la ciudad (que, por cierto, tampoco estaba bien para Dios, pero me estoy apartando del tema principal) en Génesis 19.

Es en este punto donde muchos toman la sodomía como una violación anal, pero no es tan simple.  Aunque el pecado original de Sodoma y Gomorra no era la homosexualidad, la consecuencia de su pecado original se tradujo en la homosexualidad y la depravación sexual en general.  La sodomía, entonces, ha sido comúnmente vista a lo largo de la historia como el acto sexual realizado entre dos personas del mismo género.

Sodomía es un término mucho más amplio y duro que el de homosexual, y creo que llega mejor al corazón de lo que Pablo está hablando en sus cartas.

Sin embargo, una de las cosas que hace el autor del libro mencionado es redefinir la palabra sodomía para que signifique “sexo que no se utiliza con fines procreativos”.  Sin embargo, ese no ha sido el entendimiento general de la sodomía durante generaciones.  De hecho, actualmente, la Britannica define la sodomía de cuatro maneras: homosexualidad, coito anal, zoofilia y pedofilia[2].

Entonces, si la mejor traducción de la palabra en 1 Corintios y 1 Timoteo sería Sodomita, ¿indica eso que el comportamiento homosexual se considera bueno a los ojos de Dios?  Un observador objetivo se vería obligado a admitir, en mi opinión, que no, sino que simplemente sería uno de los múltiples comportamientos sexuales que se consideran pecaminosos según la naturaleza de la palabra de Dios.

El otro problema que tengo con este argumento es que deja completamente fuera de consideración a Levítico y Romanos.  De hecho, Romanos 1:26-27 es posiblemente una de las condenas más claras del sexo homosexual en el Nuevo Testamento.

Esto también llega al corazón de Génesis 19.  Muchos creen que el problema de Génesis 19 no era el sexo homosexual, sino la violación implícita que tendría lugar.  Sin embargo, encontramos en Romanos 1 que este no es del todo el caso.

Cuando una cultura rechaza a Dios y se niega a adorarle a él y sólo a él, él responde dándoles lo que quieren: su depravación.  Romanos 1:26-27 indica que la culminación del pecado original de rechazar a Dios y adorar lo creado en lugar del creador (nací así por lo que es santo y bueno podría verse como adorar lo creado en lugar del creador) viene con ambos, hombres y mujeres intercambiando el orden creado de la relación sexual con la pasión interna y el deseo del otro.  La palabra utilizada para los hombres en este pasaje es la misma que Pablo utilizó para combinar con una cama que se traduce como homosexual en las traducciones actuales.

En una de sus grandes obras literarias C.S. Lewis dice lo siguiente: “Al final sólo hay dos clases de personas: los que dicen a Dios: “Hágase tu voluntad”, y aquellos a los que Dios dice, al final, “Hágase tu voluntad”. Todos los que están en el infierno, lo eligen”[3] No estoy usando esta cita para plantear que aquellos que son homosexuales van a ir al infierno, sino para reforzar el punto de vista de que Romanos 1 indica claramente que la autogratificación es la línea que lleva a la rebelión y a la destrucción y el comportamiento homosexual es parte de esta concesión de Dios.

Esto nos lleva a continuación, a las objeciones más populares.  Las abordaremos la próxima semana.  La razón por la que estamos dedicando dos semanas a las objeciones es esta: Es importante establecer cuál realmente es la verdad para poder avanzar con verdadera compasión, gracia y misericordia.  Lo mismo puede decirse para entender cualquier otro comportamiento pecaminoso en nuestras vidas.  Aunque trataré estas objeciones académicamente, quiero tomarme un momento al final del artículo de esta semana para reconocer que los argumentos académicos son una cosa, y son importantes, pero el trato con las personas es algo totalmente diferente y de suma importancia.  Por ello, al final de esta serie de cuatro partes pretendo ofrecer una forma mejor.  Mi objetivo es tratar el tema con sensibilidad, respeto y amor, pero basando todo ello en el firme fundamento de la verdad. Manténgase atentos  la próxima semana para la respuesta final a lo que parecen ser las objeciones más populares para llamar a la actividad homosexual un pecado.

Referencias

[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

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein es un pastor de Omaha, Nebraska, con 12 años de experiencia ministerial. Se graduó con un MDiv en 2016 del Seminario de Sioux Falls y pasa su tiempo libre leyendo y comprometiéndose con temas teológicos y culturales actuales y pasados. Está casado desde hace 12 años con Sharalee Klein y tienen tres hijos pequeños.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/AYPpO8i

 

By Tim Stratton

Sermon Outline

Riddle me this: What’s black and white and RED all over?

I remember the first time my dad posed that question to me when I was a young child. Even as a little boy – untrained in philosophy – I knew something was amiss.

I intuitively understood that if something was literally black and white . . . like a news paper . . . then it could not be the COLOR RED all over. After all, something cannot be the colors RED and Black and White simultaneously and in the same sense. There’s a contradiction here – nothing can actually be black and white AND the color red ALL OVER.

Then my dad explained to me that there was a “play on words” going on here – a “word game!” The “read all over” doesn’t refer to a color, but refers to the fact that someone can read the entire newspaper, and thus, the black and white newspaper will be READ all over.

Now, why can’t a newspaper actually be black and white AND the COLOR RED all over? Because this statement violates the logical law of non-contradiction.

The Laws of The Logos

How many of you know about the laws of logic?

I actually discuss the laws of logic in my book (my doctoral dissertation which was published last year). The first chapter is focused on how to properly interpret The Bible. Think about it: Interpreting Scripture correctly presupposes and depends upon the laws of logic. There are three fundamental Laws of Logic that are always required in rational discussion – and in interpreting Scripture:

  • The Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Things that exist have specific properties that identify them.

Let’s talk about God. Christians typically recognize God as a Maximally Great Being who possesses certain properties such as omnipotence (perfect power), omniscience (perfect knowledge), and omnibenevolence (perfect love for all people). Some theologians claim that God does not love all people and thus, based on the Law of Identity, worship a different God. I have noted that this is dangerously close to idolatry (see this short video for more).

  • The Law of Excluded Middle: A well-defined proposition is either true or false. There is no middle position. For example, the proposition that “A proposition is either true or false” is either true or false.

I’ve often said that the Law of the Excluded Middle is my favorite logical law! Think about it this way: God either exists or He doesn’t (there is no middle position). Jesus either physically rose from the dead, or He didn’t.

  • The Law of Non-Contradiction: When two claims contradict one another, one must be false.For example, if one person claims that God exists and another asserts that God does not exist, we can know that one of us must be correct and the other must be wrong. When two propositions contradict one another, one must be false and the other must be true; they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.Similarly, when two contrary statements are made (not to be confused with contradictory statements) we can know that at least one of them must be false (even though both of them could be false). If Bill says that “the moon is made entirely of green cheese” and Bob says “the moon is made entirely of blue cheese,” then these contrary statements cannot both be true. Either Bill or Bob must be wrong. In fact, both Bill and Bob are wrong.Now, let’s talk about contradictions: As Wayne Grudem puts it, “Contradictions aren’t acceptable in the study of systematic theology, since there aren’t any contradictions in the Bible.”

This presupposition is supported by Scripture itself. For example, Psalm 119:160 states that the sum of your words is truth and this implies, in turn, that God’s Word, which Christians believe is true in all that it teaches, will be logical when studied in the context as a whole.

Wayne Grudem continues:

“There are many times we need to acknowledge mystery, paradox, and things we can’t fully understand. But that’s different from saying there’s a [logical] contradiction. God never asks us to believe a contradiction.”

These laws are just as necessary to keep a person grounded in rationality as the law of gravity is necessary to keep them grounded on the earth. The laws of logic are tools which help a person to objectively determine true or false propositions, inferences, and deductions.

In my book I wrote the following:

“Logical laws apply to everyone regardless of when or where he lives, that is to say, the laws of logic transcend humanity and are objectively true. In fact, truth and logic are inextricably linked—one cannot have one without the other. Thus, if Christians claim that Christianity is true, then the affirmations of Christianity must be logical.”

Now, many people these days assert that “all religions are true!” Based on the laws of logic, however (namely, the law of non-contradiction), we KNOW this cannot be true! Consider statements made from different worldviews/religions:

Mohammad VS Jesus

Love those who consider you to be an enemy VS. Kill the infidel! (Which one is it?)

Hinduism VS Islam

“There are multiple gods” VS. “Allah is the one true God.” Both cannot be true

Buddhism VS Judaism

These religions contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive. They might both be false, but they cannot both be true. (BTW: They are both false).

Atheism VS Theism

Based on the logical law of the excluded middle, God either exists or He doesn’t. Since atheism says God does not exists and Christians, Jews, and Muslims claim that God does exist, one might not know what worldview is true, but one can KNOW – with certainty – that both views cannot be true simultaneously.

These views are mutually exclusive.

Every other view VS Mere Christianity

“God raised Jesus from the dead.” If those six words comprising that one statement is true, then some flavor of Christianity is true. CS Lewis described this as “Mere Christianity.” This leads us to what has been called “the most hated words in the Bible.” This verse is contained within today’s passage of Scripture.

READ: John 14:1-14

14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Let’s pray . . .

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father, but by me.”

In 1998 the great theologian and philosopher known as Madonna confidently declared (on MTV):

“All ways lead to God!”

Madonna, although I don’t remember her saying anything about Jesus at the time, was directly opposing Jesus. Well, based on the laws of logic, we must ask the question:

“Who is right!? Madonna or Jesus?”

If Madonna is right, then Jesus is wrong. But if Jesus is right, then Madonna is wrong.

In fact, just a couple weeks ago a survey was published showing that over 60% of self-described “born-again Christians in America between the ages of 18 and 39 do NOT believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to Heaven — and that Buddha and Muhammad also are valid paths to salvation, the Christian Post reported.

The Church (at large and across our nation) is in BIG TROUBLE!

Today, I’m going to give you reason to put your trust in the words of Jesus (as opposed to Madonna) and provide reasons as to WHY Jesus is THE ONLY WAY. In fact, all people should see that Jesus is the only way – the only way to eternal life in Heaven – for three reasons.

Reason #1: God raised Jesus from the dead!

God raised Jesus from the dead (thus, seemingly placing His divine stamp of approval on everything Jesus said, taught, and exemplified – and upon those Jesus chose to continue His teachings).

I don’t have time to unpack all of this right now, but based on the historical method – the same historical method that historians employ to find out facts about the past – the same historical method that historians have employed to find out facts about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and so many more – is the same historical method historians have employed to find out certain facts about the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

If you’d like to learn more please watch four videos I recorded about the historical resurrection on my YouTube channel:

Part 1- Historical Facts: https://cutt.ly/KYPicUq

Part 2- Examining the Evidence: https://cutt.ly/0YPibBB

Part 3- Hallucinations, Aliens, and Other Silly Ideas: https://cutt.ly/FYPiQ9e

Part 4- The Good News of the Resurrection: https://cutt.ly/mYPiRH5

Historians seek independent sources, such as, eyewitness accounts, both positive and embarrassing. These sources are plentiful when it comes to the life of Jesus and his resurrection. Mike Licona states that we have as much evidence of the resurrection, if not more, than we have of Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC.

He notes that even the harshest skeptical and atheistic historians admit several things as historical fact about Jesus. For example:

  1. Jesus existed.
  2. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  3. Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.
  4. The church persecutor, and Christian hunter, Saul was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul.
  5. The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the gospel.
  6. The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

Licona makes his case even stronger by utilizing a “minimal facts” approach that does not even reference the Gospels, meaning that even if the Gospels did not exist these facts about Jesus remain:

  1. Paul was an eyewitness (hostile).
  2. Paul knew Jesus’ disciples.
  3. Paul taught what the disciples taught.
  4. They taught appearances to individuals and groups, to friend and foe alike.
  5. They and Paul taught (and believed) Jesus was physically raised from the dead.

Points one through four are accepted facts regarding Jesus and the fifth, although not accepted by many skeptics, remains unrefuted. So, when it comes to the historical method we need to ask the following question:

What hypothesis best accounts for all of these facts?

In Licona’s book, he demonstrates that the resurrection hypothesis accounts for all of these facts – while no other scientific hypothesis offered accounts for all of these together. The best explanation of the facts is the hypothesis which makes sense of all of them together.

The resurrection hypothesis is the only one left on the table.

For a deep dive into this study, I recommend Licona’s book: “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Bottom line: if God raised Jesus from the dead, then some flavor of Christianity has gotta be true. And if God raised Jesus from the dead, then it seems that God has given His divine stamp of approval to the words and life of Jesus . . . and we have no reason to think He has done so for Madonna.

Thus, a rational and logical person should follow Jesus on this matter and believe what He says in John 14:6 – Jesus is the ONLY WAY and NO ONE gets to the Father except through Jesus!

So, the first reason why you should believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY, is because we have historical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead (that’s great reason to celebrate Easter)! This seems to be a divine stamp of approval upon the life and teachings of Jesus, and since Jesus taught that He is the ONLY WAY, we have good reason to believe Him.

But this raises the philosophical question: WHY is Jesus the only way to God? This leads us to the next point:

Reason #2: Jesus is God!

 Jesus is the only way to God because He is God.

Hold up! You might be thinking: Doesn’t saying that Jesus IS God violate the logical law of identity or the law of non-contradiction? Isn’t this some kind of a logical error?

A few months ago I led a youth group to Salt Lake City and BYU was kind enough to host our group, give us guided tour of their beautiful campus, they gave each one of us a nice BYU ball cap, and then we had a time of Q&A with one of the top Mormon leaders in Salt Lake.

One thing my Mormon friend said was that our view of Christianity had to be false because it is non-sensical to say that we worship ONE person and THREE persons at the same time.

I respectfully interrupted him and said,

“That’s not an accurate description of the Trinity, sir. We worship ONE WHAT and THREE WHOS. When one distinguishes between the WHAT and the WHOS one can see that there is no logical contradiction in saying that Jesus IS God . . . He is just not God the Father. Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, known as “The Son.” 

So, the concept of “Jesus being God” is logically coherent . . . but do we have biblical reason to think Jesus actually is the Creator of the universe? Consider what both John and Paul say about Jesus. Since we are in the Gospel of John, let’s start there and rewind to the beginning . . .

John 1: states the following:

 “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Now, I just mentioned Easter, but this is the message of Christmas — God “dwelt among us” (Immanuel)!

What I want you to see here is that The Bible refers to Jesus as “The Logos” and implies that not only is Jesus God, but also gives us some insight into the Trinity. From a theological perspective, this passage of scripture carries much weight.

Science Supports Scripture

Do you know that we actually have scientific evidence supporting this scripture?

To quickly summarize: The current scientific consensus strongly supports the theory that all nature (the stuff that scientists can test and discover) had an absolute beginning (big bang cosmology, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem of 2003).

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the evidence demonstrates that the universe (all nature) began to exist. It follows that since nature began to exist, nature cannot be the cause of nature itself. Therefore, the cause of nature must be something other than nature (supernatural).

This is exactly what the first chapter of John is stating about Jesus – he is the supernatural cause of the natural universe, and he entered into his creation so that we could know him. Think about that! The Creator of the universe entered into the universe to save the people within the universe. This is what Christmas is all about. This is why we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

To survey some of the science supporting scripture (and more), click here!

The Logic”

Another thing to keep in mind when reading the first Chapter of John is that the Greek word for “word” – “Logos” – is used synonymously with Jesus in the text. It is interesting to note that “logos,” in Greek, means, “the principle of reason.” This is where we get the word “logic.”

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God and seems to suggest that He is the grounding of logic and reason. You see, logic is grounded in the essence of God. Therefore, when we choose to think and behave logically, we are godly (approximating to or being like God).

On a side note: it’s quite interesting to note that Critical Race Theorists reject logic and exclaim that “appealing to logic and reason is racist!” However, God commanded us to “be reasonable” in Isaiah 1:18 . . . so, I’m gonna stay reasonable and appeal to logic no matter what anyone might call me.

See, “The Great Commission Is Racist!” https://cutt.ly/IYPiwoC

Bottom line: if you were thinking that we should not place so much emphasis on logic, then – according to John – you are not putting enough emphasis on the nature of Jesus!

Jesus is “The Logic” – the only way to make sense of reality!

With that said, what does the Apostle Paul say about Jesus in Colossians 1:16 . . .

The Preeminence of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Wow! According to Paul, if one can say that the creation of the universe “flowed” (as it were) through one person of the Trinity, it would be through the Second Person of the Trinity – Jesus Christ Himself!

The Creator of the universe, entered into the universe, to save the people within the universe. How cool is that? With that in mind, let’s talk about HOW Jesus saved the people within the universe.

This is our last point about WHY Jesus is the ONLY WAY!

Reason #3: The atonement of Jesus just makes sense.

Why did Jesus have to die? Why is the wages of sin death? Why can’t the wages of sin be five bucks or seven years of hard labor?

Why did Jesus have to die?

Before addressing that all-important question, first understand two things: 1- who we are, and 2- who God is.

According to Westminster Confession, the objective purpose of mankind is to know and enjoy God. I like to “tweak” it ever so slightly, and state: The objective purpose of mankind is to grow in our knowledge of God, to grow in love with God, and to enjoy a personal relationship with our Creator for all eternity (Hosea 6:6; Luke 10:27; Col 1:9; 1 Tim 2:4).

Or to say it this way: You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose of enjoying a true love relationship with God into the eternal future.

Scores of humanity have considered the meaning and purpose of life. The fact remains, if God does not exist, then there is no objective purpose in life (Atheism Catch-22). Christians, however, do not suffer from this sort of conundrum. In fact, we have a ready answer. We know the objective meaning and purpose of life: God created every human to knowlove, and enjoy God into the eternal future. This is why God created the universe and all of its contents. This is why you exist, so that you could know him. We were created on purpose and for that exact and specific purpose.

Like Oil & Water

By definition, God is a maximally great being and necessarily perfect in every way. Moreover, God created you to enjoy a perfect, holy, and pure love relationship with him.

But we’ve got a problem — a big problem! As a result of sin, now we as humans are anything but holy and pure. Now we are guilty, alienated, and corrupt in nature. Since we are corrupt and imperfect, we are unequally yoked with a maximally great being.

Like oil and water, now, we are “unmixable” with a perfect God. He is necessary perfection and we are infection. The two simply do not mix and that is a major problem for humanity.

So, humanity needs a savior. With a savior we can be justified instead of guilty, adopted instead of alienated, and have a purified and regenerated nature instead of a corrupt nature.

We were created for one objective purpose – to be the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27) in a perfect and true love marriage. We were created to love and to be loved by our Creator. However, now, because of sin, we are infected and do not mix with necessary perfection any longer (i.e., oil and water). As a result, we are necessarily separated from God.

Our hearts were created to be “pointed” to God, but now they are dysfunctional, sick, and twisted because of this separation. Our hearts are now “curved in” on themselves, they are self-centered, selfish, and sinful. We have completely “missed the mark” (the objective purpose of human existence). This is literally what the word “sin” means in the original Greek. The “mark” is God, but we are separated from him; we do not even know God exists apart from his revelation. Due to this separation, we cannot even “aim” at God and of course we will “miss the mark” and sin.

We are infected, self-centered creatures – but we are not supposed to be. God created you for a specific purpose and gave you a job description: BE HOLY! (Namely by loving God and others.) Being holy means to be God focused instead of self-focused. The problem is, all of us have “missed the mark” and have become “infection.” Therefore, we have a damaged relationship with perfection – God.

Is Restoration Possible?

The question remains: how is a broken relationship restored? Two things must occur if a damaged relationship is to be restored: 1) The offended party must choose to bear the harm. 2) The offending party must choose to confess and repent. In our relationship with God, he is the offended party as we sinned against him. We are the offending party, and are thus powerless to restore this relationship on our own. Our works are meaningless unless God, as the offended party, chooses to bear the harm. Left to our own devices, our work does not work (Isaiah 64:6).

God is life! He is the author and giver of life. He invented it and life comes from him. In the well-known Bible verse, John 14:6, Jesus claims he is “the life.” If God is life, then separation from life is death. Since sin separates us from God (like oil and water), then, consequently, sin equals death. Therefore, in every aspect that you have life, you will die if you are separated from the source of life. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

If our relationship with God is to be restored, then God must bear the harm as the offended party. If the harm is death, then, God must die. One small problem though: it is logically impossible for a necessary being to die. God cannot die physically because he is immaterial and spirit. God cannot die spiritually because he cannot be separated from himself (although Jesus felt like it on the Cross).

You are a soul (an immaterial thinking thing) with one set of cognitive faculties. God is one soul with three sets of cognitive faculties. Just as your cognitive faculties cannot be separated from you as a spiritual substance (soul), God’s cognitive faculties (all three of them) cannot be separated from his “spiritual substance.”

If God is going to bear the harm, he has to die because the wages of sin is death. God cannot die as God. Therefore, if humans are to be saved, God had to become human so he could bear the harm and experience death. We need Christmas, we need Good Friday, and we need Easter to have a restored relationship with our Creator (Happy Holy-Days)!

Why do we need Easter (the Resurrection)? It took more than just executing Jesus, because if death was punishment, if Christ is still dead, then he is still being punished. The Resurrection is proof that God is satisfied with Jesus’ atoning work. Therefore, Christianity is true!

Remember, we were created on purpose and for the objective purpose to love God with our entire being. We see this demonstrated in multiple Bible verse such as Luke 10:27 and Matthew 22:37, we are to love God with all of our mind/soul, and body/strength.

The reason why you exist is to LOVE! You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose to love God . . . AND . . .  to love our neighbors (and even those who consider you to be an enemy as our very selves!

Taken together—love God and love others—comprises the WAY of Jesus. We’re talking this morning about why we believe in the TRUTH of Jesus. But He also says that He is the WAY to live… and this is His way: “Love God and love everyone!”

The purpose of life is all about LOVE!

To do anything other than that is to miss the mark (the very definition of sin).

If we ever choose not to love God in any way that we have life, then our lives ought to be terminated because we are objectively broken. This is an appropriate outcome. If something breaks, we either throw it away, or we fix it. Now, as far as our broken relationship with God goes, we have the choice to either be “thrown away” or to be “fixed.” Because of the work of Jesus (the Atonement) all people can be “fixed” and restored — as we ought to be in an objective sense — if we choose to be.

Justice is Good

Consider the nature of God to gain understanding of these issues. Psalm 97 states, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” This is not referring to God’s chair; rather, this is stating the essential attributes and the essence of God. This describes who God is! In other words, if God did not exist, there would be no such thing as objective righteousness, goodness, wickedness, or justice. God is perfect love (1 John 4:8). Thus, perfect justice must be part of his essential omni-benevolent nature as well. After all, justice is good and loving.

When someone escapes justice, we intuitively know that it is a bad thing. God created the universe, and part of the fabric of His creation is a moral universe. There are also natural laws, mathematical laws, and logical laws that govern the universe. Similarly, there are moral laws that we are obligated to obey (Paul says they are “written on our hearts” in Romans 2:15).

Perfect justice demands punishment, or it is not really justice. God cannot turn a blind-eye to our sin and say, “Oh well, boys will be boys, girls will be girls, humans will be humans.” That is not justice; it is injustice and ignoring crime and ignoring evil is bad. Therefore, God cannot ignore our sin and remain worthy of worship.

If a criminal commits a crime, we know that he deserves to be punished. We also know that the punishment should be fair and that it ought to fit the crime. If a seventeen-year-old shoplifts a pack of bubblegum from the gas station, there should be an appropriate punishment – we don’t give him the death penalty! However, moral monsters like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden deserve a much greater punishment than the bubblegum burglar.

Now think about our crimes; we might not be a Ted Bundy, or a Hitler; however, we have all committed crimes against the very essence of morality, love, goodness, and justice – God! Because of this fact, we do not “mix” or relate with God. One may object and state that they are generally a “good person.” This may be true; however, they are not perfectly good, and cannot “mix” with a necessarily perfect God. Our lives are broken and infected, and therefore, we need a savior so that we can have a relationship with our creator. This brings us to Jesus; this brings us to the cross.

Conclusion

Some have falsely accused God the Father of some form of “cosmic child abuse” because he took out his wrath on his innocent son, because we sinful humans made him so angry. This is bad theology (remember the doctrine of the Trinity). We worship one God (not three); Christians are monotheists. Jesus is God. It logically follows that Jesus *is* the offended party. Therefore, Jesus, at the cross, satisfied his own righteous wrath – his own justice (which is good), for us! This is amazing love! This is amazing grace (the Cross was enough)!

Do you see the beauty? The offended party (a sinless, holy, pure, and morally perfect God) became human to pay our gruesome debt, to bear the harm, to satisfy his morally perfect justice. Wow! Because God has chosen to bear the harm, now, we have a choice to make. We can either choose to accept God’s act of love on the cross, or we can reject God’s grace and deal with his justice (separation from God and all that is good). Do you want perfect justice or perfect love? Perfect love is Heaven and perfect justice is separation from the Creator of the universe (Hell).

Because of what Jesus has done, we can have a restored relationship with our Creator. All you have to do, as the offending party, is freely choose to confess, repent, follow, and fall in love with Jesus. This is the essence of the message of the Gospel.

You see, we have THREE very good reasons to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, just as He claimed to be.

  • God raised Jesus from the dead (a divine “stamp of approval”).
  • Jesus is the only way to God because Jesus IS God.
  • The atoning life, death, and resurrection just makes sense – no other religion or worldview offers anything similar.

Have you put your trust in Jesus? Do you love Jesus?

Pray . . .

Outro: What is black and while and SHOULD be READ all over? Your Bible!

Spend time in your Bible. That’s a great way to fall in love with Jesus.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Gou2pR

 

By Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

Back to where we started.

What if I told you that the issue with Lil Nas X was not his being gay, but with how he perceived the Church’s response to his being gay?

He has somehow come away with the understanding that he should hate himself because he has a natural proclivity to same-sex attraction.  For some reason, pointing out a lifestyle of sin has been equated to pointing out the evil of the person. I think this reason is tied to the idea of identity.  In this final section of this series, I will attempt to offer a “better way” in dealing with these issues.

It is important to note, however, that these ideas are not original with me.  Many who have come before me such as Christopher YuanRachel GilsonPreston SprinkleLeadthemhome.org and others champion these same principles, but I will attempt to outline a strategy here that is simple, straight forward, and yet extremely difficult.

In an attempt to assuage the conflation of sin and sinner Christians have come up with a pithy phrase that you may have heard (or even said): “Hate the sin but love the sinner.”

As I mentioned in part one of this series, sexuality is a different animal altogether.  This is not some universally accepted vice that must be confronted like drug addiction or alcoholism.  The world has done a bang-up job in making this issue one of identity, and the church, for some reason, has agreed to the terms.  Therefore, when a Christian says, “Hate the sin but love the sinner” the non-Christian balks in disgust.  Why?  Because the non-Christian has no identity except that which is being called a sin.  Thus, the non-Christian believes that the Christian is subtly saying, “hate their identity but love what they could be if we could change them,” but they are currently happy with their identity.

Of course, this is not the intention of the phrase, but its use has had an unintended consequence in the LGBTQ+ community for decades.  A full generation of human beings that identify as their sexual proclivity have come away with the belief that Christians hate them for simply being “who they are.”

Their solution then, is to either hate themselves and try to be something they are not, or to leave the bigoted views of those who claim to love them behind and pursue a life of what seems to offer fulfillment and happiness.

To the liberal church’s credit, they recognized this reaction as unacceptable.  After all, God wants all people to come to a saving faith in him, does he not (1 Timothy 2:3-4)?

While their diagnoses of the problem may have been accurate, in parts two and three I touched on why their response to the problem (affirming people in their sin) was not and is even doing more harm than good.

So, what then?

How does the church affirm the holiness of God and his moral framework for creation and minister to those that closely identify with the sin that drives their sexuality?

I recently listened to a podcast by conservative pundit Andrew Klavan, who is a Christian.  Klavan has a gay son that proclaims a faith in Jesus Christ, thus, Klavan struggles with the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

I will not get into critiquing Klavan’s beliefs on this matter; however, I believe his response to a listener’s question regarding her own gay son deserves some consideration.  In the midst of answering this mother’s question Andrew says something to the effect of:

“Homosexuality is the one sin that we don’t allow in our church.  We don’t tell the fat man to stop being gluttonous, but we tell the gay man to stop being gay.  My advice is to love your child with the love of Christ and pray that he will pray to God concerning his sexuality as we all should be bringing our sexuality before God” (paraphrased).

I believe Andrew is onto something here.  We treat Homosexuality differently than any other sin.

Now, some might rebut Andrew’s statement by indicating (rightly so) that sexual sin is more severe and has an internal consequence that other sins do not (1 Cor. 6:18).  So, gluttony may not be the best example, but the response to other sexual sins then should be considered.

How many young people in your church have had sex before marriage?

How many men (and women) are viewing pornography regularly?

How many marriages have crumbled due to infidelity or abuse?

How many teens struggle with opposite-sex attraction in a way that is sinful?

What would happen if we treated each of these people the same way we treat those struggling with (or embracing) homosexuality?

What if we did not think the answer to homosexuality was to make a person straight but to help a person become dedicated to Christ?

In the same response Klavan mentions a concept that is conspicuously foreign in some of our conversations regarding homosexuality.  He says something to the effect of allowing God to confront the sin in people’s lives since we are all mired by some sin or another.

In the same vein, noted theologian and Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Zambia, Voddie Baucham is credited for saying this concerning the gospel:

“The gospel message is more about sin than about sins. The point is that I don’t need to approach a person on the basis of a specific sin that they need to quit but on the basis of a Nature that needs to change” (emphasis mine).

How often do we ask a person struggling with lying to stop lying before coming to Christ?  How often do we ask someone that is addicted to drugs or pornography to quit their addiction before coming to Christ?

The way we handle homosexuality in the church, however, almost forces a gay man or woman to renounce their homosexual behavior before they can come to Christ.

What if we spent less time convincing people of individual sins and more time pointing to our own sin nature as the reason we need a savior?

This does not mean we ought to ratify sinful behaviors as good.  If we did that then we are limiting the ability of the Spirit to convict individuals of individual sins.  Tell an addict that their addiction is not only unproblematic but part of their identity and that they should embrace it and why would the addict ever seek a way out of their addiction?

The church has a nasty history of handling sexual issues poorly and we need to come to terms with that.

I believe that the message the world needs to hear is not that they are evil but that they are broken, and they cannot hear that message unless we first tell them how broken we are apart from Christ.  In other words, it is not so much the desire to convince the post-Christian culture that they are morally bankrupt, but that they are without hope just as we were without hope.

Instead of shouting into the burning building that the people inside are going to die because they are inside, we offer a way out of the building.  “If you don’t want to die, come this way!”

This is what Voddie Baucham is saying concerning how we ought to preach the gospel.  The gospel is not the good news of behavioral modification.  The gospel is the good news that the Almighty God of the universe has provided a way to life!

In my conversation with the former student concerning these things she expressed a concern about the “hate on the internet” from supposed Christians concerning the LGBTQ+ community. This concern stems from two things, a misunderstanding of what hate really is on her part, sure, but also an inability to engage with society in a way that draws them to Christ on the Christian’s part.

Take, for example, Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17.

Paul could have walked through Athens and chosen to address their polytheism and idolatry.  However, he knew that this would not be a winsome way to express the good news of Jesus.  Instead, he lauded their spirituality and passion and found a hook on which to hang the gospel.

Outside of the church we must start looking at conversations with the post-Christian American culture more like a Mars Hill conversation than a letter to the Corinthians conversation.

What is the difference?

In one, Paul was addressing unbelievers (Mars Hill) and in another he was addressing supposed believers that knew better (1 Corinthians).

The church has spent so much time convinced that homosexuality is a threat that we have lost the opportunity (in many ways) to minister in grace and truth. There is no real threat to the Church!  The gates of Hell themselves pose no danger! (Matthew 16:17-19)

The liberal church has ministered to them in grace and has augmented the truth and thus, the job of the orthodox church is made that much more difficult.  There are now competing gospels for the gay person. This is a failure of the Church not of God and not of those that are being confused.

One gospel that affirms their identity both sexually and as a child of God and one that affirms their ability to be adopted as children of God but insists a thorough reckoning of the self in regard to behaviors and appetites.

But in the reaction to pursue truth with passion we have left grace at the window in many situations.

We do not need to convince the homosexual that they are participating in a particular sin to win them to Christ, but we must convince them that they are a sinner (regardless of whether or not they are gay) that is in need of a savior.  In other words, the conversation is the same with a young man living with his girlfriend as it is with a young man living with is boyfriend, and yet, we tend to handle the two situations very differently.

They need not renounce all of their sins prior to knowing Jesus, just that of their sin nature.  They renounce slavery to sin and embrace slavery to righteousness as they place their faith in Christ.  And then the Holy Spirit gets to work and, as we all know, they will likely continue the struggle!

If they come away with the idea that they ought to hate themselves, it is likely that we have handled the conversation poorly.

So what does this “better way” mean?  Do we remain silent on the topic of homosexuality culturally? No, but we must cover the truth in love.  Homosexuality is not the primary issue, just as sexual promiscuity or pornography use is not the primary issue.  The primary issue is a heart that needs desperately to be transformed, fulfilled, and made new.  Give us a heart of flesh instead of stone Lord! (Ez. 36:26) Too often, the church operates with a heart of stone towards those that are in the LGBT community.

I think the following are some (not all) ways that the church can start to make headway in the conversation on sexuality in our culture.  These are not easy, but I believe they are simple and in line with scripture and the gospel.

  1. Refuse to use the language of “identity” concerning sexuality. Simply do not do it. If a couple comes to your church and says, “we are a gay couple” treat them in the same way as you would an unmarried heterosexual couple that is cohabitating.
  2. Abandon the idea that God will choose to make someone “straight” if they come to Christ. This puts an undue burden on a specific group of people. God may not take away my lustful desires, but I can pray that he curbs them to his will.  The same can be said for people with a bent towards homosexuality.  God may not (and probably will not) make them “straight” and that is okay.  To be celebrated and supported even!  These brothers and sisters will need our support more than most as they will feel stuck between two opposite worlds.
  3. Reassure the gay person of the gospel, offer accountability (if they desire), and do not treat them as if they have something wrongwith them just as you would not treat a person struggling with any other sin that way.
  4. Encourage faithful study of the word, not only on the issue of homosexuality, but on the whole counsel of God. If they want resources on the topic, offer to go through a book by Christopher Yuan or Preston Sprinkle with them (read it first for yourself!).
  5. Pray, love, and befriend! Understand that you should not compromise on the truth, but that does not mean love and friendship should go out the window.
  6. Encourage church leadership to think through this issue with a gospel mindset, not a moralistic mindset. Offer resources, like I mentioned above, and specifically consider leadthemhome.org.
  7. Be cognizant of how you act online concerning these things and resolve to progress

Lastly, understand that this is an uphill battle.  We will be bucking trends on both sides of the aisle.  We could lose friends, we could accidently offend, and we could be called all sorts of names from those that believe homosexuality is a sin and from those that believe it is not.  Stand firm on the truth, regardless of consequences, but do not abandon grace and love in the process (Matt. 5:10).

I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I do not believe it is a sin beyond the grasp of an Almighty God. The Church needs to stop treating it as though it is the one sin that must be fixed before someone darkens our doors. May God grant us all grace and favor as we endeavor to glorify his name and bring others to the foot of the cross!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3C3mXsd