Tag Archive for: John Ferrer

Is Trump an Unconstitutional Dictator? What About Corruption?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing something unprecedented in American history! This week, we’ll explore how President Donald Trump is using the “shock and awe” strategy to shake up the political landscape – and more importantly, how Christians should navigate this new era without becoming complacent or too comfortable with the changing leadership.

With the recent transfer of political power, how has the current administration managed to accomplish so much in such a short time? And are these rapid changes more beneficial or more detrimental to the American people? Jorge Gil and John Ferrer temporarily take over the ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ podcast to examine Trump’s bold political moves from a nuanced, biblical perspective, tackling key questions such as:

  • What is the “shock and awe” strategy, and how is Trump using it to reshape the political landscape?
  • How has the political left and legacy media lost the trust of the American people, and why have they failed to regain it?
  • What were Trump’s three biggest campaign promises, and has he followed through on them?
  • Is Trump acting like a dictator, or have the attacks against him only strengthened his influence?
  • What has Elon Musk and DOGE uncovered about government waste and corruption?
  • Why shouldn’t Christians put too much trust in the Trump Administration or any political party?

It’s a fascinating—and at times overwhelming—political climate, but in this conversation, Jorge and John will encourage Christians to stay engaged, keep up with current events, and analyze it all through a biblical lense. Tune in to learn how Christians can stand as beacons of light, restore civil discourse, and foster courage and hope in America. You won’t want to miss this fast-paced, thought-provoking episode!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Department of Government Efficiency: https://doge.gov/
2025 Donald J. Trump Executive Orders: https://bit.ly/4hN3gL2
24 Things Donald Trump Is Promising To Do: https://bit.ly/4hYdNCs

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Personally Prolife, Politically Prochoice: A Response

Can we be pro-life personally but pro-choice politically? The quick answer to this loaded question is: No, we can’t really be pro-life personally if we are pro-choice politically. That’s because pro-lifers recognize that the child-in-utero is a human being, so the decision to abort isn’t a strictly personal decision at all, it’s an interpersonal decision. In that sense, it’s not a “private” decision (for just one person to decide). It’s a public decision (where at least 2 people are involved). Since abortion is an interpersonal act, it bears upon society and politics. Some people might not want to have an abortion, for themselves, but that does not qualify anyone as pro-life. Pro-choicers themselves recognize a “freedom to choose,” even when that includes choosing against abortion. In summary, if you are only “personally” pro-life, then you aren’t really pro-life.

What does “personally pro-life politically pro-choice” even mean?

The good news is that if you are “personally pro-life” that means you would never go through with an abortion. Congratulations! That’s an important and heroic stance. We can disagree and argue over the “politically pro-choice” part, but if you have taken any stand against abortion, then I commend you. Perhaps if more abortion-choice advocates were to go at least as far as “personally pro-life” then we’d have even fewer abortions than we currently do. Saving baby’s lives is worthwhile, no matter who is doing it. I would rather have someone personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. Most of what follows is aimed at the “politically pro-choice” part. If it’s not clear later, then let me make it clear now, I celebrate, encourage, and wholeheartedly support the fact that some pro-choice people have let the pro-life cause take root in their personal convictions. If they are “personally” pro-life, then they are a step closer to being fully pro-life (personally and politically). My whole effort in this article is to help extend that conviction further, beyond merely personal conviction, and into a fully formed pro-life outlook.

It’s Code Language for “Pro-choice”

Just to be clear, pro-lifers typically identify as anti-abortion both on a personal and public/political level. They can say, “I would never have an abortion and abortion should be generally banned.”[i] So when people try to drop the second half of that, wanting to blend pro-life and pro-choice, they are typically trying to sample the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, this hybrid, usually means they have a pro-choice perspective overall. To say you are only “personally” pro-life is often code language for, “I won’t go as far as the most radical pro-choicers, celebrating abortion or acting like it’s no big deal, but in point of fact, I’m still entrenched in the middle of the pro-choice camp.”

Most pro-choicers, by the way, admit that abortion is “bad.” They are not “pro-abortion.” Only the most radical/extreme pro-choice figureheads will act like abortion is commendable. Pro-choice advocates, generally, aren’t trying to promote more abortions or celebrate abortions.[ii] Most everyone on all sides admits that any given abortion is regrettable. So, it’s not terribly impressive when a pro-choicer says that abortions are gross, ugly, bad, or traumatic, they just think – contrary to pro-lifers – that abortion is a “necessary evil.” Abortion is not “good” but, so they say, it is good for women to have that choice.

Often, people don the hybrid position because they are pro-life at heart, but they are politically progressive and there just aren’t any solid pro-life platforms within the Democrat party (or Libertarian, or Green, or Socialist parties for that matter). In other words, they’d support a pro-life candidate if there was ever one campaigning within their party, but when left to choose between their pro-life convictions and their political party they are too allied to the Democrat party (for example) to stop fighting in the pro-choice army. Their pro-life convictions are burdensome and expendable. With the slightest threat of turbulence, they can throw their pro-life sentiments overboard for the sake of political expediency.

If you lean pro-life but can’t find a political candidate you’d support in your party, instead of sacrificing the pro-life cause for political expediency, I encourage you to let your candidates know how you feel! Press and pressure them to hear your voice. And withhold your vote till your party can offer a pro-life candidate worthy of your support. Abortion is a big enough issue to where it deserves to be a deal-breaker like that.

It’s Confused Compassion

To be sure, this hybrid position can flow from noble motives. People may don the hybrid position as an effort to balance compassion for both the child and the mother. Conventional pro-lifers often focus attention on the child-in-utero and don’t clarify just how much compassion and concern they have for the mother. Pro-choicers often focus attention on the mother while dehumanizing and delegitimizing her child-in-utero. Both of these extremes are problematic.

With the hybrid position, however, one may be trying to draw attention to both the child and the mother. This hybrid may sound like any of the following:

“I’m personally pro-life, but I vote pro-choice”
“I would never have an abortion, but I’m politically pro-choice.”
“Abortion is wrong for me, but we shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies.”

Notice the word “but” in between each of these clauses. The hybrid position tries to merge two camps, bridging a hostile divide. It has the tone of a strategic compromise. Indeed, this hybrid position is amenable to almost every stripe of pro-choice politics, except perhaps for the most radical population-control advocate. But pro-lifers, cannot, in good conscience, relegate abortion to the realm of merely “personal choice.”

The hybrid position treats abortion like an entirely private personal decision, so only the pregnant mother has moral standing in deciding the fate of her child-in-utero. This line of thinking suggests that we individuals can pick and choose whether abortion is right for us, but we should not try to tell anyone else that abortion is wrong for them. Supposedly, we all decide our own ethics of abortion. And abortion is such a personal decision that even if we conclude that it’s a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good practice – what we really mean is “it’s wrong for me.” It may be “right” for someone else in a different situation, or with different needs and interests. If this smells like relativism to you, I smell it too.

Compassionate motives are great, and we should celebrate compassionate concerns for mother and child alike. But no amount of good motivations are safe from spoilage in a cauldron of relativistic ethics. Apply this kind of logic to something that we can all agree is wrong, and you’ll see how this relativistic framework is shaky. For example, “I would never own a slave, but I would never tell someone else what they can or can’t do with their property [slaves].” If we start treating the most basic human rights like they aren’t absolute, then we end up with moral absurdities like say abolishing slavery is, “True for me, but not for you,” or “murdering gay people is, bad for our society, but is good for some other society.”

It’s Emotionally Pro-life but Intellectually Pro-choice

Another reason people may choose the hybrid position is because deep down they feel abortion is wrong but for whatever reason they believe that pro-choice is still a rationally sound position because of women’s privacy rights. The loss of a little baby is awful, but abortion isn’t bad enough to deserve civil abolition – like we’ve done with murder, slavery, rape, and a host of other evils. At a heart level, they sympathize with the pro-life position, but they know too many objections and defenses for the pro-choice position, and they still care about struggling mothers, so they hold steady to pro-choice politics.

One might say this person is emotionally pro-life but intellectually pro-choice. When they look at the facts of abortion, and weigh their own conscience on the matter, they see that abortion is wicked awful stuff. And they can’t comfortably support that action. But, when they look away and trust the commercials, the articles, and word-of-mouth they’ve gathered from liberal intellectual friends, professors, and authorities on TV, they find the pro-choice position compelling.

I’d suggest that usually when people hold this position they don’t understand the pro-life side very well and they’ve been duped by pro-choice rhetoric. They may have been pro-life in their younger days but the only arguments and evidence they’ve seriously considered have been from pro-choice professors, or political advocates, or both–politically partisan academics who aren’t interested in giving the pro-life position a responsible treatment. Sadly, if you formed your current views on abortion at college or graduate school there’s a good chance that your exposure to the abortion debate has been one-sided in favor of abortion-choice. Gallup Polls have shown that the longer you spend in college, the higher the chances you’ll declare yourself pro-choice.

If you aren’t sure about the solid ground supporting the pro-life position, I commend to you: Abort73.com, AbortionFacts, Lozier Institute, LiveAction, Equal Rights Institute, AbortionHistoryMuseum, TheAbortionMuseum. Having spent most of life in pro-life apologetics, I’m convinced that the only way people can reject the pro-life position is (1) they didn’t know it’s true, or (2) they don’t want it to be true. Getting informed can help solve the first part. Getting God in your life can help with the second.

“the only way people can reject the pro-life position is (1) they didn’t know it’s true, or (2) they don’t want it to be true. Getting informed can help solve the first part. Getting God in your life can help with the second.”

It’s the Muddy Middle

Other times, I find people adopt a hybrid position because they see themselves as “moderates,” trying to find the golden mean between extremes. These same people often avoid “labels,” and don’t like to be lumped into “categories” These middlers can boast that they aren’t extremists. And they may try to mitigate and avoid conflict by finding compromise positions in every debate. Abortion is a live debate in bioethics, politics, and society. So, it’s no surprise to find some conflict-avoiders mediating the debate with a compromise position trying to affirm the dignity of mother and child, dignifying the importance of life and liberty, and equally valuing both pro-life and pro-choice positions. There’s a general wisdom in seeking moderation, balance, and middle-ground where possible.

Unfortunately, the middle isn’t always a safe place to camp. Some battles don’t permit any neutral “sideline,” so everyone is already on the battlefield presently affected by the socio-political fallout of abortion-choice policy. Permitting some rhetorical flourish, those committed to both sides are entrenched in the middle of an open battle, subject to crossfire from both sides. Having meandered into and encamped in the middle of an active battle, they are torn between two allegiances. Effectively, they are casualties waiting to happen. The hybrid position is not a friend to both parties, it’s an enemy to everyone. In a battle of ideas, playing both the pro-life and the pro-choice position is akin to a turncoat, a double-agent, an enemy in the gates committed ultimately to an irrational contradiction, at best, or a dangerous compromise, at worst. Now, that person can save the life of her own child – and that heroism deserves praise – but she betrays her efforts by refusing to intervene and protect other imperiled human beings in utero.

This warfare analogy might sound harsh, extreme, or misleading but imagine someone trying to play the moderate position regarding sex-slavery: “I would never own a sex-slave, but I’m in no position to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their sexual property.” Clearly, that “moderate” position has granted too much to the pro-slavers because they grant that human beings can be treated, ethically, like property. Pro-choicers, similarly, treat living human beings in-utero, like property that can be disposed at the will of his or her owner. Obviously, slavery is very different from abortion, but both should teach us that human beings aren’t property and should not be treated as such.

Or imagine a moderate position on the holocaust: “I would never gas a Jew, but who am I tell tell people from a different country, in a different culture, what they can and cannot do with their citizens.” The moderate has assumed that mass slaughter of unwanted human beings is not a crime against humanity, and it could be ethical in one society but unethical in another. This “moderate” position isn’t moderate at all. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon either – moral relativism is quite popular in many circles. Yet moral relativism betrays the very notion of human rights, and has historically played a major role in the holocaust, slavery, and in recent times, abortion.

These ugly examples demonstrate that the middle ground between two politically charged positions is not always a golden mean. Sometimes, it’s a horrific compromise. The real “moderate” position should not be between pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (abortion-on-demand), but rather between which exceptional cases of abortion should be legal–ex., rape pregnancies, or imperiled pregnancies (threatening the mother’s life).

Remember that if abortion is a moral right of women, the pro-choicers are justified in fighting adamantly for it. If abortion is morally wrong, however, then pro-lifers are justified even moreso, as the scope of this evil is deadlier than any other act of violence in world history. Abortion in the United States has already claimed far more lives, in far less time, than the entire North American slave trade ever claimed. Yet slavery had no chance of abolition if “enlightened” northerners were committed to both slavery and abolition. Slavery was too entrenched of an evil for the abolitionists to play the moderate position as if slave ownership was an excusable “necessary evil.” In the Civil War, there was no strategic advantage in trying to say that slavery deserves to be abolished and yet it shouldn’t be abolished. That position is not only a logical contradiction, it’s morally unsound and politically foolish.

This same muddy middle makes no more sense when applied to apartheid South Africa. It would be equally foolish to say, “I personally oppose apartheid, but I’m not in any position to judge whether South Africa should or should not have apartheid. That’s for South Africa to decide for itself.”

Or we could apply it to infanticide and readily see the same contradiction: “I personally oppose murdering one’s newborn baby, but who am I to judge a struggling mother who feels like she needs to smother her inconvenient little baby for squirming too much. It’s her baby, so it’s her right to kill it if she wants.”

It’s Relativism

This hybrid position also carries a tone of moral relativism. As we saw above, the hybrid position easily retreats into individual or cultural relativism where some moral principle is only as authoritative as a group vote (cultural relativism), or a personal preference (subjectivism). For one person abortion is unethical, for the next person it’s ethical, for another person it’s sometimes ethical sometimes not. There would be no factual wrongness about abortion except with respect to one’s own personal standards of right and wrong. This brand of easily slips into “might makes right” ethics, committing the “popular appeal fallacy,” and it cannot distinguish consistently between “legal” and “moral.” In cultural relativism, slavery was ethical–as long as it was the legal convention of the time.

But truth isn’t decided by vote. And evil is still evil, even when it’s popular.

There are lots of problems with relativism. But I’ll just note one more important objection here. Abortion bears upon human rights, and human rights are not the kind of thing that qualify for relativism. If women have a human right to full autonomy over their own body, up to and including abortion, then abortion is ethically permitted – and that would be an objective moral fact, regardless of what any given women should “feel,” “think,” “believe,” or “prefer” within her own subjective or conventional ethics. Now that’s a pro-choice rebuttal to relativism.

The pro-life rebuttal runs even deeper. Beneath the right of autonomy, exists the right to life, as in:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, 1776

Notice the right to “life” appears before the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This order is sensible because only living individuals have liberty, and only living individuals with some measure of liberty can pursue happiness as they see it. These three rights do not necessarily exhaust all our fundamental human rights, but they are sufficient to show how the rights of life and liberty relate. Pro-lifers have a strong, principled, and historic case that the most basic of all human rights is the right to life. I would argue that the abortion-choice camp hasn’t even come close to satisfying their burden of proof here. They have not yet shown that the mother’s claim of liberty (i.e., personal sovereignty, privacy, autonomy) gets deep enough to undermine and nullify the child’s potential, alleged, or possible right to life.

Furthermore, since killing a human being is an irreversible, final, and permanent act against a fellow member of the species, it should never be doled out for trivial reasons or in the presence of reasonable doubt.

In summary, abortion bears heavily upon human rights, human rights are too foundational to surrender to the flight and fancy of relativistic ethics, and so, abortion is a poor fit for relativism. Subjectivism and conventionalism just aren’t serious enough among the schools of ethics to account for the moral weight of that child’s life.

It’s Pragmatism

This hybrid “logic” could also sound persuasive if you understand pro-life policy to be too impractical to work for society. Many abortion-choice advocates will use the threat of “coathanger abortions” to intimidate people into agreement. The threat is something like, “If you ban even the safe abortions, then women will be forced to get unsafe abortions.”

There’s a cold logic to this. Pro-life advocates as well abortion-choice advocates all have to weigh the practical implications of their ideals. Anyone making society-wide policy needs to consider practicality. The abortion debate is not merely moral, it’s also a judicial and political debate. It’s a legal matter, and legality is bound on all sides by practical issues of enforcement.

Real-world policies, however, should not be measured against utopia either. Banning abortion won’t stop all abortions, nor will legalizing abortion stop all coat-hanger abortions. Practical concerns pull both ways, tempering both the pro-life and abortion-choice positions. Legalizing abortion hasn’t stopped illegal and unsafe abortionists from finding scared imperiled women to prey on. We know of prolific mass murderers like Dr. Kermit Gosnell, whose abortion-mill generated hundreds and thousands of illegal abortions, post-birth abortions (infanticides), and subjected patients to unsanitary, injurious, and even fatal conditions. But besides just his case, we could cite many more clinics, doctors, and nurses who prove that the abortion-industry is intrinsically unsafe, and many of its worst offenders operate with little to no regulatory oversight regulation due in part to the knotted political landscape of abortion.

We also know, from history, that legalizing abortion at a state level in the late 1960’s and then nationwide in 1973 radically multiplied the number of abortions. Restated, that means, the prior ban on abortions radically reduced the number of abortions. That fact points out that banning abortion would greatly serve women’s health interests since the very nature of abortion is medically and psychologically dangerous for women.

Even legal and relatively “safe” abortion is inherently risky for the mother. In 98-99% of cases the abortion is not protecting the mother’s life so it’s medically unnecessary. Being medically unnecessary, all of its inherent risks of its inherent risks are unnecessary risks. The physical risks are many including cuts, punctures, bruising, heavy bleeding, disfigurement, drug interactions, incomplete abortions (leaving parts of the deceased child behind), and all the subsequent side effects that may occur with those problems including infection, sepsis, fever, headaches, dizziness, nausea, scarring, blood clots, coma, heart attack, and even death.

Possible long-term side effects and complications are often disputed but are thought to include sterility, pre-term birth, miscarriage, malfunctioning cervix, menstrual irregularities, and correlation with breast cancer. There are also a range of psychological risks – even for “safe” and “legal” abortions–which have been demonstrated in multiple studies. Pro-choicers tend to focus on the short-term sense of relief reported by abortion patients, but in long-term studies abortion patients report post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, thoughts and attempts at suicide, broken relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, broken relationships, self-destructive behaviors, and a constellation of problems correlated with serious emotional trauma. Of course, the abortion-choice industry has tried to dispute all these claims about the dangers of abortion, but it’s medically naive to think of abortion as medically inert. And, even if child-birth were just as risky or riskier, the dangers are heavily mitigated by the birth of live child. Abortion isn’t safer than childbirth. It’s not safe for the mother. And it’s just not safe.

We should also consider how the abortion industry influences our sexual choices. First wave feminists at the turn of the 20th century, for example, decried abortion as a mode of exploiting women. Instead of reigning in men and calling them to take responsibility for the women and children in their lives, abortion is one more legal excuse for males to treat women like sex objects; love ’em and leave ’em. Given the preponderance of illicit sex, sex-trafficking and pornography, combined with the declining rate of marriage there is a strong case to be made that abortion-choice policy hasn’t been very “practical” at all. It set up countless women for exploitation, loneliness, and trauma, while setting the heaviest and fatal consequence on defenseless children-in-utero.

We have more than enough reasons, therefore, to think that pro-life policy would serve women’s health fare better than pro-choice policy has. Pro-life policy is practical.

It’s Cowardice

Other people may take the “personally pro-life” position because they aren’t terribly pro-life in the first place. No abortion choice advocate wants to be seen as a barbarian or a villain. And donning some of the terminology and tone of a pro-lifer may lend a sense of tolerance and compassion. Wearing the facade of an outspoken pro-life advocate doesn’t take a lot of courage, but it does take some courage. And some people just don’t have enough courage to take a consistent pro-life stand. Perhaps they lack the conviction or the knowledge. But whatever the cause they are too timid to fully align with the pro-life position. They may still think abortion is bad but they lack the fortitude to take a firm stand against it.

It’s easy to understand why people would be timid when they aren’t well-informed on the issue. If knowledge is power, then ignorance is crippling. Courage turns to cowardice when we don’t understand the issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it. In that event, a “moderate” pro-lifer or pro-choicer may be scared to explain or defend their pro-life position. By default, they gravitate toward the muddy middle, imagining it safer to appease both camps and avoid having to state, explain, or defend their position beyond a few shallow talking points.

Many pro-lifers and pro-choicers, in my experience, stay fairly moderate on the issue and aren’t terribly informed about the risks involved in abortion, or about the size and scope of abortion, or about the wider effects of abortion on society, or the history of abortion in America. Often, they don’t even know what an abortion looks like, or what the developing child looks like in a first-term abortion. It is no surprise that people may claim to be “pro-life” but, for fear of offending a pro-choice friend or family member, they immediately buttress that position with a fatal concession to pro-choice policy. They are “personally pro-life” – which is politically neutral, and wholly non-threatening to anyone else – but they are tolerant towards anyone else’s pro-choice politics or policies. They won’t even stand against abortion-choice legislation because their “pro-life” stance is effectively hidden from the world, squirreled away in the private recesses of their personal preference within their own bedroom at home.

In other words, to be “personally pro-life” is often ignorance-fueled cowardice. Now, I don’t say that lightly, but neither do I intend this as a mean-spirited insult. All of us have something to learn about this issue, and to the extent that we don’t understand or we just don’t know the specifics we can be crippled in our convictions and prone to cowardice. The simple solution then is to get informed. Study a bit. Guard our claims, saying what we know, admitting what we don’t know, and allowing ourselves to learn in the process. We can grow in our convictions and our courage as we learn. And through it all, we should maintain an attitude of humility, grace, and love.

It’s Ignorance

Ignorance poses another problem here besides inspiring cowardice. Sometimes people simply don’t realize how incompatible are the two camps. They may ascribe to the hybrid position because they believe that being “pro-life” is nothing more than saying, “I find abortion distasteful.” But since many pro-choice advocates find abortion distasteful, then that’s hardly a defining feature. That limp and flimsy form of “pro-life” may be due to ignorance.

A more troubling trend is when people affirm the hybrid position because they really don’t want to know what is involved in abortion. They may regret that some people choose abortion, but they don’t want to get informed enough to get involved in any solution. For them “ignorance is bliss.” Ignorance is an evasive maneuver, so they don’t have to take any responsibility. Just as good samaritan laws obligate competent bystanders to help people in dire situations, a person may be morally obligated to help a pregnant friend or neighbor choose life. But they are only responsible if they are competent to help. If they don’t know enough to help, then they aren’t morally responsible to help.

The straightforward solution for ignorance is knowledge, but of course, that’s a difficult task whenever it’s willful ignorance. There’s no knowledge so penetrating that people will receive it against their will.

It’s Political Confusion

Few issues have been as politicized as abortion. So, in many people’s eyes “abortion” is just another political issue. Some people may claim to be only “personally pro-life” but not politically because the political law of the land is pro-choice and they don’t want to fight about it. In their eyes it’s expedient or even ethical, to be “tolerant,” and “open-minded” on the issue. They don’t like arguing about politics or religion, so they don’t say anything is wrong with abortion-choice policy.

There’s some cold logic to this position, as it’s part pragmatism, and it can swirl in elements of “compassion,” and “tolerance” (i.e., often in the form of relativism). For people who are wishy-washy in their politics, or they aren’t willing to disagree with flawed party platform, then the hybrid option may sound very appealing.

There is, however, nothing intrinsically political about abortion, Democrats can and have been pro-life. Republicans can and have been pro-choice. Ideally, all major parties could agree that killing one’s own innocent defenseless family members is unethical and should be banned. But, unfortunately, the political lines have been drawn and the rhetoric has been loaded like artillery so that any democrats will be fired upon like an enemy spy plane if they dare question the value of Planned Parenthood or if they suggest that abortion is barbaric. Political liberals, in this way, would do well to distinguish themselves from the Democrat establishment so they are never pressured and pulled into a party platform that they can’t support in good conscience. Likewise for political conservatives, they shouldn’t be so married to the republican party that they cannot stiff-arm any foolish unethical policies popular within the establishment. Republicans may, generally, have a better record on pro-life policies, but they have not always sided with life, especially when it’s unpopular.

I should add, that even though Democrats should accommodate the pro-life position I don’t think Republicans should be open to abortion-choice policy. Republicans should be no more open to abortion-choice than they should be open to reinstating slavery. I know that’s a touchy comparison, but policies which treat human beings like objects that can be used and disposed at will are intrinsically wrong at the level of human rights, regardless of one’s politics. We don’t even need to haggle over the definition of “person” or when “consciousness” begins. Abortion kills biological human beings as if those humans were some disposable property. Objectifying humans is wrong, whether by slavery or abortion. Just as no self-respecting democrat would support slave laws that allow for the objectification of human beings, they should likewise be able to renounce their party platform and stand on the side of life.

Abortion is the single deadliest act, institution, or event in world history.

Also, we do well to remember that we are talking about the single deadliest act, institution, or event in world history. In this way, abortion is a bigger issue than party politics. Democrats would do well to take the pro-life platform more seriously, especially since they missed the boat 150 years ago when the Democrat party sided with the biggest human rights crime of that era too. I don’t care to defend or promote republicanism or democrat politics here. All political parties have a mixed history on human rights issues. Democrats aren’t all wrong, and Republicans aren’t all right. Pro-lifers, unfortunately, have few voting options on the Democratic side these days. When it comes to the anti-abortion position, the Republican party has a better record–though not by much.

A Final Word on Being “Personally Pro-life”

Clearly, there are some glaring problems when people attempt to straddle the fence on the abortion issue. We have plenty of reasons to broadly reject the hybrid position. But it’s still better to be personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. If you personally would never go through with an abortion, I applaud you! If you refrained from an abortion because you are generally pro-choice but personally pro-life, then you still saved a life. Choosing life merits celebration every time! It is better to have a political pro-choicer personally abstain from abortion than to have a pro-lifer who betrays their conscience and aborts their unborn child. When all the smoke settles, we each still have to answer for the decisions we make in our own lives, regardless of our ideologies.

If you are “personally pro-life” but “politically pro-choice” then I encourage you to consider going the whole way and just be pro-life. Abortion is too devastating, too deadly, too violent, too harmful to women. It doesn’t even deserve half-hearted support. We all do well to consider and commit to a genuine pro-life stance. The pro-life cause goes beyond just personal opinions, preferences, or relativistic ethics. “Pro-life” refers to a fundamental recognition that the child-in-utero deserves protection; not just your child or my child, but every child. If you are only “personally” pro-life then I plead with you, don’t let your compassion stop with your own family planning prospects. Care for all the women and children imperiled by abortion. If we don’t speak for the voiceless, they will never be heard.

References: 

[i] By “generally banned,” I mean the banning of convenience abortions where the mother’s life is not in danger. Other mitigating circumstances might include cases of “rape” or “severe deformity.” Pro-lifers usually, however, oppose abortion even in these exceptional cases of rape and fetal deformity, although most consider abortion justified as “life-saving” if pregnancy imperils the mother’s life.

[ii] While most pro-choice advocates do not knowingly support an increase of abortions, it’s a well known fact of groups like Planned Parenthood that abortions are a major source of revenue, and more abortions spells more profits. In this way, clinics may encourage higher numbers of abortions–but not because of any belief that “more abortions is morally better,” but merely because of profit incentive. This profit-incentive is the substance behind allegations of “abortion quotas” at Planned Parenthood clinics. Former Planned Parenthood clinic directors have attested to the quotas, but these claims have been disputed by opponents.

Recommended Resources: 

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

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

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, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with CrossExamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/48dVzcJ

/by

What If I Don’t Like Either Candidate?

If you’re like me, this upcoming election feels like a choice between which electric outlet to jab a fork into. I’m not a big fan of either candidate. It may be tempting to just sit-out this election. But we shouldn’t give up that easily. This November, you won’t be voting for a pastor, or a personality. You’re not just voting for a president either. You’re voting for a package deal. We’re going to get the president and everything that comes with them. So, we owe it to ourselves to look past their personality and consider the rest of the caravan that’s coming along with them. Here are eight reasons why you and I should still vote in this election even if we don’t like either candidate.

If You Won’t Vote for Either Candidate Then . . .

1. Vote Down Ballot

Besides the presidency, there are thousands of other elected officers to be determined this November. History shows that whichever party wins the presidency gets a boost in the elections down ballot. You can help your preferred party win those other elections by endorsing their party for president.

2. Vote For a Cabinet

The president doesn’t work alone. He or she has a cabinet of about 15 different department heads, 10 other cabinet officials, and the Vice President.[1] This cabinet of 26 people advise the president on a regular basis. The president has the authority to appoint all of those officers. If you don’t like either candidate but you would trust a conservative cabinet over a progressive cabinet, then you know who to vote for.

3. Vote For 4,000 Presidential Appointees.

Besides appointing all the cabinet members, the president also appoints 4,000 or so government positions. When people say, “The Trump Administration” or the “Biden Administration” that’s what they are talking about; it’s the president plus the cabinet plus 4,000 or so appointees. The president isn’t just a personality but also a gateway for overhauling Washington DC.

4. Vote For a Vice President

Besides serving as the next in line for president, the VP is the Chief officer in the president’s cabinet. Even if you don’t care for Trump or Harris, you can get a sense of the administration direction through their running mate. Plus, you might see something in a VP candidate to inspire your vote.

5. Vote For a Party Platform

I would say ‘vote for the party’ but there’s no telling what the party stands for without their platform (what they say they’ll do) and their policies (what they do). In the last 5-8 years, the “left” has pulled farther left. “Old-school” democrats are considered moderate or even Republican now. Today’s Republicans are tough to distinguish from libertarians. The point is, you can still read the party platform of the Democrats and the Republicans and vote for the one that best fits our beliefs and values.

6. Vote For the Policies

Beside the party platform, both candidates represents a set of policies. Now, you can expect politicians to make all sorts of campaign promises leading up to the election. But I’m not talking about those empty promises. I’m talking about the party policies that are likely to happen, once that party is in power. The president, of course, can’t just make a new law. Congress does that. But the president, VP, and his cabinet can throw a lot of influence behind their party policies.

7. Vote For the Power of Executive Office

The president has the power to make executive orders including creating or disbanding whole departments if they so choose. Now, you may not trust either candidate with that power. But someone will have that power regardless. I bet you distrust one candidate more than the others.

8. Vote Against the Other Candidate

There is no option to vote for two U.S. presidents in this election cycle. So, when you vote, you’re always voting against the other candidate. Maybe you don’t like either candidate. But you can still vote against whichever candidate you dislike the most.

A Final Warning

If you aren’t convinced yet, and you don’t follow my advice, then you have that right. It’s a free country, for now. It’s not like Christians will lose their salvation for voting third-party or sitting this one out. But I would urge you not to waste your vote. You can still exercise wisdom, love, and courage by voting not for the president but for the policies, platforms, and personnel that they represent. Yes, that means voting in the presidential election, but it’s not just about the president. It never was. It’s about competing visions of what American will become over the next 4 years. You can vote for the future of America by voting on the direction of this country right now.

Otherwise, if you sit this one out, then you’re muffling your God-given influence. You’re wasting a precious gift. And you’re telling all the rot and darkness out there rioting in the streets as we speak that you’d rather keep your “salt and light” to yourself (Matt. 5:13:16). Perish the thought. Let’s go vote!

References:

[1] This number can change with any given administration, whenever a new office or department is formed, or another one is shut down.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

The Ethics of AI in Writing

When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, I’m a luddite. I’m analog over digital. Forget Pandora® and Spotify® or even CD’s. Vinyl LP’s rule them all. I grew up playing outside, climbing trees, chasing things, reveling over sticks – not joysticks, just sticks. If they look like a sword or a gun, even better. I’m a Labrador retriever, but literate. I have the tech-savvy of your average canine too. That’s because I’m Gen X. I was raised before the interweb, before social media and Netflix. I remember Atari, Nintendo, and Sega, and Alladin’s Palace. I slogged through the dial-up era. I even met my wife on Myspace. Rock on! When Sunday comes, I actually leave my house to go to church! I turn my phone off to listen to the sermon. And the sermon isn’t at 1.5x speed either. It’s at regular speed, and it takes forever. But that’s how I roll. There are some disadvantages to being an old-school luddite like me. But there’s one big advantage. We first learned about AI from The Terminator. We see artificial intelligence through the lens of Skynet killbots. We learned to fear it before we were ever tempted to love it.

We’re not surprised to find that ChatGPT, for example, poses some major threats to modern writing. It’s not all bad, of course. AI image-builders are great at stirring your creative juices. Writing engines can be a great research tool for summarizing big data into small bites. Long before ChatGPT hit the market spell-checkers and grammar assistants were helping to spot-clean our writing, on the fly. And I’m sure there is AI-tech is tracking down terrorists, blocking telemarketers, rejecting spam, and exterminating viruses. AI can be wonderful. But, technology can be used for good or evil, depending on how people wield it. So, when it comes to publishing, we should be aware of some of the ethical problems AI poses.

First, if you didn’t write it, you’re not the author.

The most glaring problem with AI writing is plagiarism. If you are writing a paper, and use AI to generate a sentence, a paragraph, or more, then that’s content you didn’t write. If you present that writing as your own, you are lying. That’s plagiarism. Ethically, you would need to report that AI program as a co-author. If you’re using AI to write your blog or online article, you should the least say: “Written with the assistance of AI/ChatGPT/etc.” And while that’s better than nothing, if that’s all you say about AI, it’s still misleading since you didn’t just use AI merely to fact-check or assist with research. The writing itself was produced by a writing-engine. So, you aren’t the sole author AI wrote a significant portion of the article, blog, or book while you are claiming sole authorship. In that case, AI didn’t just “assist” you. You two are co-authors. It’s misleading at best, and dishonest at worst, to claim authorship for written material that you didn’t author. Don’t be surprised then if publishers or professors reject your papers and accuse you of plagiarism if you ever claim AI writing as your own.

Second, if you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

AI is a Godsend when it comes to research. With AI you can get quick summaries, condense tons of information, and hunt down obscure quotes, authors, and books. I’m a big fan of AI as a research tool. But there’s a looming delusion with AI-infused research. People can radically overestimate their expertise to whatever extent they rely on AI to do the “thinking” for them.

Consider it this way. If you had a forklift and used it to lift thousand-pound loads, does that mean you’re strong? Of course not. A forklift is a tool for heavy lifting, and that’s fine. That’s what tools are for, to make work easier. But the machine did the hard work, not you. So you aren’t strong. The machine is. Now imagine you have a forklift, and not only do you use it to lift thousand-pound loads on the job site, but you also use it at your home gym to do your weightlifting. All your strength-training features you sitting in the driver’s seat, steering this forklift to move weights, pull loads, flip tires, push sleds, and carry you through the miles of jogging trail. You were using the forklift for exercise, so does that forklift now mean you’re strong? Still no. You’re no stronger, but likely weaker because that machine is taking over the hands-on work that you should have been doing to grow fit and strong. That’s how we often treat AI. Instead of wielding it as a tool in the hands of a skilled craftsman, it’s an artificial limb rendering us handicapped and codependent. AI, therefore, must be subordinated beneath the task of learning. It should function in service of our learning. As writers, publishers, and content creators, we should be learning about the subjects we’re writing about, we should be gaining experience and expertise. We do well, then, to take full responsibility for the learning task before us, so we’re not using AI to replace learning and knowledge with the appearance of learning substitute for learning and knowledge. Rather we should be using AI to help us learn and gain knowledge. At the end of the day, if you’re reposting AI content that you didn’t learn for yourself then you don’t know whether that content is correct, fair, or reasonable. If you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

Third, if you don’t lead it, you’re led by it.

A third problem facing AI-usage is that it “has a mind of it’s own.” I’m not talking about actual autonomous life. We’re probably not at the point of iRobot or even Skynet. I’m talking about how AI isn’t neutral or objective, and it’s often laughably mistaken. If you followed Google’s “Gemini” launch fiasco then you know what I’m talking about. In February 2024, Google launched an AI-engine called “Gemini.” It could generate images, but never of white people. Apparently, it had been programmed to avoid portraying white people and, instead, to favor images of black people and other minorities. Allegedly, this is from a DEI initiative written into its code. So, if you asked for images of the Pope you might get one of these instead:

Now I’m not too worried about Gemini 1.0. I’m more concerned about the AI engines that are so subtle that you’ll never realize when they skew information in favor of a political narrative. For all writers, editors, authors, and content-creators, we need to do more than take credit for our content. We need to take responsibility for it too. That means we take leadership over the tools used in research, fact-finding, and learning. Instead of letting those tools lead us whichever direction they’re programmed to go, we decide for ourselves whether those directions are worth going, change course as needed, and refuse to let a Google algorithm determine what we are going to think or believe. Another way to say this is that we should expect that AI introduces some degree of slant and bias to the equation. So instead of trusting AI to tell the truth, and report events accurately, we need to keep a healthy dose of skepticism on hand and be ready to correct against our own biases and the bias we find in AI programming.

At an innocent level, an AI writing program might be biased in favor of formal writing – replacing all contractions like “aren’t,” “we’re” and “y’all” with “are not,” “we are,” and “youz guys.” At a more insidious level, AI can insert a decidedly partisan slant – especially when it comes to progressive political agenda items. It would be naïve to think that Google, Bing, Microsoft, etc. aren’t willing and able to let political and religious bias slip into the programming.

There’s No Going Back to the Stone Age

Now I may be a luddite, but I’m no fool. I understand that unless there’s a nuclear fallout, or something comparable, there’s no way we’re going back to the days of dot matrix printers and analog typewriters. We aren’t going back to the stone age as long as these time-saving tools are still functional. I write these warnings to you, not as a prophet but as a minister. I don’t foresee technological disasters crashing down on us. Rather I’m a hopeful Christian encouraging all of you aspiring writers out there to model academic integrity, write well, own your material, and grow through the writing process.

Oh, and Analog > Digital. Long live Vinyl!

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

How To Keep Your Job Without Losing Your Soul: A Survival Guide For Diversity Training

,

You’ve been at your job for almost a year. You enjoy your work. You’re planting roots. Soon you’ll qualify for a pay raise and new benefits. Things are looking up. Except, at today’s business meeting, the boss announced a mandatory diversity training[i] for all employees. He made it sound harmless, perfunctory, just a hoop to jump through. No one asked questions. Everyone just nodded. Since you’re new here, you held your questions. You don’t want to cause a stir. Still, something smells fishy. Maybe you’ve heard stories about DEI, SEL, CRT, or Unconscious Bias training.[ii] Maybe you’ve been through this before, and you know what’s coming. But whatever is bothering you, there’s a decision to make. What will you do about this diversity training?

You’ve got options. But before picking one, you should know what you’re up against.

Background Check
On the surface, “diversity training” seems like a great idea. We all agree that racism, sexism, phobia, and bullying are all bad. But everyone has their biases. So with a little coaching maybe we can get along better, become more productive, solve problems, and have a healthier workplace. Not to mention, we might avoid a harassment suit or messy discrimination case down the road.

Diversity training can be incorporated into “leadership training,” “career advancement,” or “onboarding programs.” But the big takeaway is that the workplace (school, or church) needs to get ready for more diversity, and all the challenging opportunity that presents.

Advocates like the US Chamber of Commerce claim diversity training is a “business imperative,” so companies can provide “opportunities for everyone . . .  help[ing] lift communities and strengthen the health, prosperity, and competitiveness of our nation and our society.”[iii] In the past these programs were called “sensitivity training” reflecting a growing awareness of sexism and harassment in the workplace. But today they’re more often about racial and LGBTQ diversity, with a progressive political spin. Some critics have spoken out about the multi-billion dollar diversity training industry, claiming it’s a trojan-virus, packaged in slick and appealing buzzwords, but filled with corruption, extortion, and radical agendas.[iv] More gracious critics argue diversity training just doesn’t work, as anthropologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev explain:

“[D]iversity training is likely the most expensive, and least effective, diversity program around. But [corporate, church, and school representatives] persist, worried about the optics of getting rid of training, concerned about litigation, unwilling to take more difficult but consequential steps or [they’re] simply in the thrall of glossy training materials and their purveyors. That colleges and universities in the United States persist in offering training to faculty and students, and even mandate it (29% of all schools require faculty to undergo training), is particularly surprising given that the research on the poor performance of training comes out of academia.” [v]

Compliance Warning
The average employee won’t know all that, or know the latent problems with diversity training, or detect progressive political influence. Most employees won’t raise objections as long as it doesn’t cost them anything. The common practice is “go along, to get along.” In other words, compliance is commonplace.

Christians often behave the same way, thinking they’re being meek and mild just like Jesus. After all, Paul says, “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:8). We Christians should be peacemakers. While that’s not exactly compliance, it can look the same.

Even if you eventually decide to partake in the training, there is no option, for mature Christians to be lazy, passive, and compliant. Whether it’s a diversity seminar, critical race training, struggle sessions, LGBTQ sensitivity school, or whatever it is, you’ll be offered a veritable buffet of ideas, and they might even try to force-feed it to you. So, if you’re in the habit of ingesting whatever authorities feed you, then you’re likely to swallow something toxic. Passive compliance isn’t a responsible option.

Is It Really Mandatory?
Fortunately, “mandatory training” isn’t always mandatory. If it’s just suggested, then you don’t have to go. Or it’s mandatory only if you’re at the office. Then you can dodge it by missing work on those days.

Even if the training is optional, however, you may still decide to attend, especially if you want to learn what they’re saying and how to respond to it. It probably won’t be 100% wrong but not 100% right either. You would need discernment, tact, and will-power. And most importantly, make sure to “live not by lies.”[vi] Measure your words. Guard your actions. Sign only what you agree with. Speak only truth. If you’re required to sign a position statement then politely decline unless you agree with it. Your Christian testimony is more valuable than any paper or screen they put in front of you. “Above all else,” Scripture warns, “guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.” (Prov. 4:23; NIV)

Now, let’s suppose you can’t be “out of the office” on those days but you don’t want to attend. Further, let’s suppose this training will likely conflict with Christianity or your conscience. If a diversity seminar promotes divisiveness rather than diversity, or it stirs up more racism than reconciliation, then you may have valid grounds for a religious exemption. If you’re on good terms with your manager, or higher up, you could request that. They might write an “exception clause” for you. If this diversity training is meant to reduce the risk of discrimination lawsuits, then they might grant a religious exemption, not as a favor but for fear of a discrimination suit.

Your human resources department can probably help you to know your rights here. If not them, then call a lawyer friend, or in extreme cases, call Alliance Defending Freedom (www.ADFlegal.org), the American Center for Law and Justice (www.aclj.org), or the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (https://www.thefire.org/).

It Is Mandatory. What Now?
Avoidance, of course, isn’t always an option. Legally speaking, the company has a general right to decide what kind of expectations and values they want among their employees. And there are many creative ways they can obey the law while pressuring you to conform. At this point, your options are more limited. Two extremes are: Quit or Lawyer up.

Quitting your job will work, for avoiding training. But, besides losing the job, you may lose health insurance, friends, advancement opportunities, and ministry influence in the company. Plus, you can be replaced with someone more compliant, surrendering that territory to the same forces you were protesting. Christians need to count the cost. Following Jesus takes a toll. Maybe not your job, but it might cost some convenience, embarrassment, a pay cut, a reprimand, or suspension. “If anyone would come after me,” Jesus said, “let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24; ESV). Historically, the normal Christian life invites adversity from a world that cares little for Christ (John 1:10-11).

Another extreme option is to “lawyer up.” Christians should be forgiving and not litigious with other Christians (1 Cor 6:7). But that’s a general principle, and between church-members. In a corporate setting, there can be righteous lawsuits. Christians have a general duty beyond their own interests to seek justice for other people (Micah 6:8). And if your company is teaching people to “be less white,”[vii] or that “black people can’t be racist,”[viii] or “white people are sub-human demons”[ix] – as some diversity trainers have said – then legal action might be how a righteous defense rises to the level of egregious offense. But be warned. This option is expensive. And you might not have a case. The diversity training industry is big, with lots of lawyers, lots of money, and even a couple supreme court precedents on their side (Regents v. Bakke, 1978; and Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The upcoming Supreme Court case, Students v Harvard College, could roll back some of that. In the meantime, this legal landscape is dicey.

The moderate option is to attend the training. Rarely would mere attendance be sinful. If you have some discernment, take good notes, and act polite, you might be able to make it through the seminar without any trouble and even learn something. If you’re required to attend, and the seminar is somehow immoral, then the moral burden rests heavier on your supervisors than on you.

Four Strategies For Mandatory Diversity Training

If you’re in this boat, and your best option is to attend the seminar, then you still have the choice of how to carry yourself during the training. What will your attitude and strategy be? James Lindsay proposes four ways to conduct yourself here.[x]

  1. Gray Rock: This is passive resistance, the safest option for most people. Present yourself as a boring gray rock, unengaged, uncommunicative, calm, offering only short answers, and limiting exposure. On social media this is called ghosting. As long as you don’t have to say or do something against your conscience, this strategy should work.
  1. Spying/Whistle-blowing – a riskier option is to play along, engaging and cooperating as if you’re compliant but you’re really spying. You’re recording and gathering notes preparing to “blow the whistle.” Spying poses moral dilemmas as you may be acting against your conscience, or saying things that you don’t believe. That’s spiritually dangerous territory. Plus, whenever people do find out you’re the whistle-blower you’ll likely lose your job, or worse. This isn’t a great option unless the diversity training is very egregious, and you really know what you’re doing.
  1. Outright resistance – another risky option is to openly resist. You could refuse to attend, or write a letter to the board, or stage a walk-out, or host a press conference, or things like that. Again, the risk of getting fired is high. Done right, however, it can be very effective, especially if most of the company is involved. Know that the bigger the protest, the harder it will be to pull off, and as tensions escalate you risk looking like the bad guy.
  1. Trolling – This is an accelerationist strategy, where the “troll” gives false information – like jokes, sarcasm, or memes – to illicit responses that derail the event. Quick witted class clowns have been doing this at school for ages. Some people have just the personality, and skill set to pull this off. But it’s an advanced strategy. It can require you to know the material better than the trainer does, so you can exploit holes in their argument and gaps in their evidence. You risk coming off as adolescent, insincere, and rude. For Christians, this isn’t generally a safe strategy, especially if it turns into mocking people or picking fights. Expect to lose your job with this strategy too.

The 5th Strategy: Christian Wisdom

Building on Lindsay’s four strategies, we can add a fifth option. Scripture exhorts Christians to live at peace with everyone as far as we’re able, treating people with the respect and love they deserve as “image bearers” (Gen 1:26-28; Mark 12:31; Rom 12:8). While we won’t agree with evil or lies, we can listen graciously, affirm the good, speaking only when it’s helpful and only what’s true.[xi] Even if the diversity seminar is flooded with bad ideas, Christians can hold fast to the truth so the torrent of confusion doesn’t sweep us away.

At times, Christians may need the Gray Rock strategy (#1). And we should take good notes preparing to blow-the-whistle if it comes that (#2). If the training requires agreeing with lies, foolishness, or evil, then you’ll have to decline – in open resistance (#3). You may even need to point out bad logic, with an innocent question or joke (#4). You can be merciless towards bad ideas, just make sure to be merciful toward, never mocking them. The important thing here is to be a good example of Christ and exercise wisdom throughout. As you watch or listen to a mixture of good and bad ideas, you can chew what they feed you, swallow the good and spit out the bad, so to speak.[xii]

You might not have any great options available. But if you measure your words, guard your heart, and keep the faith, you can stand your ground. May God bless your effort!

REFERENCES:

[i] Besides diversity training, most of this article could apply to other training types that threaten freedom of religion/conscience.

[ii] DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. SEL: Social Emotional learning. CRT: Critical Race Theory.  Each of these acronyms is loaded with political and cultural connotations and should not be taken at face value.

[iii] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” [Main page] USChamber.com, accessed 2 April 2023 at: https://www.uschamber.com/diversity

[iv] https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-1-equity/, https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-2-diversity/, and https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-3-inclusion/

[v] Frank Dobbin, and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia,” 10, no. 2 (2018), 48 at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf

[vi] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Live Not By Lies,” [Essay] (12 Feb 1974). See also, Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (NY: Sentinel, 2020).

[vii] https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/coca-cola-diversity-training-urged-workers-to-be-less-white/

[viii] https://www.foxnews.com/media/woke-department-defense-equity-chief-writes-anti-white-posts-exhausted-white-folx

[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2tQathSxpg

[x] https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/fighting-dei-training/

[xi] For example, Neil Shenvi, “DEI Done Right: Disentangling Christian Community From Critical Theory,” ShenviApologetics.com (San Dimas, CA: Life Pacific University, 7 April 2022) at: https://shenviapologetics.com/dei-done-right-disentangling-christian-community-from-critical-theory/

[xii] See, Hillary Ferrer, Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2019), 47-62.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Dr. John D. Ferrer (MDiv, Southern Evangelical Seminary; ThM & PhD Southwestern Baptist Seminary) is a teaching fellow with the Equal Rights Institute and ministers full-time with Crossexamined.org.

 

 

/by

The Fuel Behind the Fire: Anti-Israel Protests & American Universities

What’s driving the anti-Israel protests storming college campuses all across America? Schools like Columbia University, UCLA, Emory, Harvard, and Yale have been hit with massive pro-Palestinian mobs that have led to hundreds of arrests and violent threats against the Jewish student populations. Why are these angry (yet seemingly sophisticated) mobs targeting college campuses and how have they successfully managed to recruit students to join in the madness even at the threat of expulsion?

In this midweek podcast, John guides us through a conversation investigating the ongoing anti-Israel protests as he also breaks down the geopolitical, historical, theological, and prophetic backdrop. He’ll also provide an update as to how the U.S. government is responding to these hostile demonstrations in real time and expose the true heart and motivation behind them. During the episode, John will answer questions like:

  • What sparked this string of protests and what demands are being made?
  • What would be the implications of a ceasefire from Israel?
  • Why is a two-state solution impossible?
  • How legitimate is the “Free Palestine” cause?
  • What makes Israel a political barometer in the Middle East?
  • If Hamas managed to defeat Israel, how would the U.S. be impacted?
  • Why do many Muslims and citizens of Gaza support the flourishing of Israel?

As you learn about the context surrounding the protests and the Israel-Hamas conflict, it’ll become more and more apparent why Christian apologists should have a vested interest in the nation of Israel. Take a listen as John reveals how politics is playing a major role in the recent rise of antisemitism on college campuses in the U.S. and explores how the Islamic worldview continues to fuel hostility between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. And please continue to pray for the safety of Israel and a peaceable end to this ongoing war.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

The Satanic Temple Abortion Clinic: A Critical Assessment

The Satanic Temple (TST) is at it again. The atheistic left-wing activist group is already known for starting afterschool Satan clubs,[1] erecting unholy statues at government buildings,[2] and trying to carve out religious exemptions to pro-life laws.[3] Now they have opened an online abortion clinic.[4] Abortion clinics are not uncommon. And TST has a history of abortion activism. But this abortion clinic stands out for two reasons.

TROLL LORDS

First, the clinic is named “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” an obvious troll move.[5] TST is so well-known for trolling it is not just a side quest, but a lifestyle.[6] Their inception, according to the New York Times, was designed as “a mischievous thorn in the side of conservative Christianity.”[7] Stated positively, they could teach a masterclass on trolling. They take adolescent snark, infuse agitational protesting, incorporate theatrics, and beef it up with a cadre of lawyers till it becomes a whole socio-political methodology. And make no mistake, they are dead serious about it.

For TST, trolling is a mode of political activism advancing their ideology, which they expound as Seven Fundamental Tenets.[8] These guiding statements are roughly what could be expected at the crossroads of progressive politics and New Atheism. So far, their primary focus has been religious freedom in the public square. Their trolling is a way of stretching “religious freedom” till it breaks. Instead of supporting robust religious freedom where Christianity, the majority religion, holds a measure of cultural privilege and influence in the public square, TST aims at a more austere separation of church and state. This Troll Lord approach has not yet blown up in their faces. But this abortion clinic might be the spark that does it.


RITUAL ABORTION

The second reason distinguishing this clinic is that it treats abortion as a religious ritual. In their own words: “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic™ is an online clinic that provides religious medication abortion care. The clinic provides abortion medication via mail to those in New Mexico who wish to perform The Satanic Temple’s Religious Abortion Ritual.”[9]

Yes, TST abortion services are touted as “religious rituals,” but these are not surgical abortions with blood-smearing child sacrifices. This is an online mail-order clinic. The New England-based Satanic Temple offers only medication (pill) abortion[10] through an unnamed pharmacy in New Mexico. The “rituals” are something between semi-religious motivational self-talk on one end and a legal formality on the other.[11]

First, TST is protesting the oft-scorned U.S. Supreme Court case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).[12] The clinic’s namesake, Justice Samuel Alito, penned the majority decision in Dobbs, the monumental ruling that overturned both the Roe v. Wade (1973)[13] and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)[14] decisions.

Second, TST maintains they are helping to fill a healthcare void for women as states roll back abortion-choice laws in the post-Roe era. Even in pro-choice states like New Mexico (as of 2023), where TST’s clinic is based, these medication abortion services, supposedly, could offer more privacy and access than is currently available at traditional abortion clinics.

Third, they are potentially circumventing future anti-abortion laws through a religious exemption. If a woman identifies as a TST member, then, theoretically, she could bypass abortion bans and get an abortion under the protection of First Amendment “religious freedom.” Her federal-level right could bypass state-level anti-abortion laws.[15]

Fourth, they stand to grow their membership if this religious exemption route works. If they can carve out a federally protected religious exemption against state-level abortion laws, then they will have effectively overturned the Dobbs decision, but only for members of The Satanic Temple. That is a strong incentive for people to join TST.

Fifth, TST stands to make a fortune from tax-exempt “religious” donations, as abortion-choice activism is a left-wing goldmine right now.[16]

Sixth, beyond just exploiting religious tax exemptions, they might explode them. Religious tax exemptions have their basis in a pluralistic “religious freedom” interpretation of the First Amendment. But opposing that view is the secular sense of “separation of church and state.” In this view, the First Amendment is thought to mandate strictly secular governance.[17] Judicial history favors the pluralistic view.[18] TST seems to favor the secular view. TST could make religious tax exemptions so offensive that all such exemptions are revoked.

Strategically speaking, by calling their abortion services a “religious ritual,” they stand to benefit materially and advance their cause, at least in the short term. But they may have overplayed their hand. There are brands of Satanism that practice “black” magic and or believe in a literal Satan.[19] TST, however, is not one of them. There are different denominations, so to speak, of Satanism; and while some arguably have a place for , The Satanic Temple is not like that.[20] TST does not see their rituals as child sacrifices to Satan since they do not believe God or Satan exist. Yet in claiming abortion as a satanic ritual, they can .

 

HEALTH RISKS WITH PILL ABORTIONS

Medically speaking, TST risks undercutting their pro-choice aims by aligning with an especially dangerous abortion method. At a surface level, they are proudly pro-choice. And opening an abortion clinic is very pro-choice. That seems consistent enough. But, at a deeper level, they are also trying to promote women’s health. In their words, “TST is taking many steps…to establish exemptions from laws that do not promote the health and safety of patients.”  [21] They also try to conform their beliefs to the “best scientific understanding of the world” and “strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.”[22] But medication abortion significantly increases health risks for mothers.[23] That is not very compassionate, empathetic, or healthy. These increased risks can be difficult to see through a partisan political lens, but with an eye for humanitarianism and good solid science, the risks become evident. What are those health risks?

First, if a woman has a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, the pill regimen will very likely not work on her.[24] She will remain pregnant with a looming fatal complication. But because she had the abortion pill, she believes she is no longer pregnant, and she may well not know she is in harm’s way.

Second, if women use abortion pills to secure an abortion without clinical visits, they can unwittingly terminate future pregnancies, rendering themselves infertile if they are Rh-negative.[25] The blood type Rh-negative (i.e., A-negative, B-negative, AB-negative, and O-negative blood) is a common blood type affecting 15 percent of the population. It often lingers undetected without affecting one’s health. A pregnant woman seeking chemical abortion may never know she is Rh-negative. But with that condition she will need Rh D immune globulin (RhoGAM) at the time of her pill regimen.[26] Otherwise, her body will form “antibodies against the fetal blood cells, which can result in catastrophic immune rejection of the fetus in a subsequent pregnancy.”[27] Medication abortion would not just complicate this pregnancy but imperil future pregnancies, causing stillbirths, neonatal deaths, and brain injuries, and can make her infertile.[28]

Third, medication abortions are self-administered. The first pill, mifepristone, may or may not be given in the clinic. But the second pill is self-administered, at home two days later. That pill, misoprostol, is the primary active agent expelling the pre-term child. A host of side-effects routinely happen at this stage.[29] But being at home, she has no direct clinical supervision. The pregnant mother has to guess whether her bleeding, cramping, nausea, and so forth are bad enough for a visit to the emergency room. She is not a licensed physician, and likely not experienced with this sort of thing. She cannot be expected to know when her severe cramping is too severe or when a lot of bleeding becomes too much bleeding. Nor can she be expected to know if the abortion was complete. Yet any remains left in-utero can cause further complications, such as infection, sepsis, or death. If she is using chemical abortion to keep her pregnancy a secret or to stay anonymous, then even if she goes to the emergency room for complications, as she should, she will likely have to drive herself. Severe cramping and hemorrhaging become doubly dangerous when you are stuck in traffic. Moreover, she will lose minutes, perhaps hours, at a time when seconds count. Additionally, chemical abortion risks are likely much higher than reported due to hospitals misreporting chemical abortion complications as miscarriage complications.[30]

Furthermore, chemical abortion is designed for early-stage abortions, up to 49 days (seven weeks). Even Planned Parenthood says that after eleven weeks, pill abortion is not recommended.[31] Its effectiveness declines between eight and eleven weeks, from about six percent to thirteen percent chance of failure.[32] Beyond that threshold, effectiveness drops, and complication rates worsen. All these facts together explain why medication abortions generate roughly four times more medical complications and injuries compared to surgical abortions.[33] These risks also help explain why the FDA currently faces challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court for rolling back medical regulations surrounding pill abortion (see FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine).

Fourth, coerced abortion is not “pro-choice.” Yet self-administered abortions are notoriously difficult to screen for coercion. Pregnant women are often pressured into an abortion by an abuser, a partner, parents, or friends. Abusers can use abortion to destroy evidence that might otherwise incriminate them for rape or molestation. For parents it may be a way to protect the reputation of the family, or to punish the daughter. Or it could just be an overbearing or negative influence pressuring her into an abortion. A 2023 peer-reviewed study showed that only 33% of women who had abortions wanted their abortion, and 24% of women surveyed described their abortion was coerced[34] Abortion-choice advocacy, TST included, hinges on abortion being a choice. But compared to pro-choice rhetoric, the ugly reality of coerced abortion tells a different story. Women are exploited for sexual gratification, then tossed aside to fend for themselves, or threatened with abandonment, or abused till they kill their children-in-utero. That is a far cry from women’s liberation.

The convenience and privacy of pill abortions can make them sound like a panacea for sexually liberated society. But the reality is not so pretty. Pill abortion means less medical supervision, more coercion and social isolation, and around 400 percent more complications and injuries for women. In this way, The Satanic Temple is drifting into a basic pro-abortion posture at the expense of being “pro-science,” “pro-choice,” and “pro-woman.” If the TST really wants to promote women’s health and freedom while staying pro-choice, they should at least wait till chemical abortion and health regulations improve so TST isn’t left contradicting their own aims.


BAD PRESS FOR PRO-CHOICE

Besides the heightened health and social risks with pill abortions, there is a glaring publicity problem with satanic ritual abortions. When people hear about the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” they are liable to interpret it as child sacrifice. That is not what TST is trying to do here, but that is still how their marketing sounds. Yet any affiliation between abortion and child sacrifice is bad press for the pro-choice cause.

Most pro-lifers already believe abortion is child sacrifice — metaphorical or not, intentional or not. From a pro-life Christian perspective, abortion-choice culture looks like modernized Molech worship (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut. 12:31; 18:10; Jer. 7:31; Ezek. 16:20–21). Instead of sacrificing born babies on the temple altar to Satan’s hoards, The Satanic Temple is sacrificing preborn babies on the altar of convenience. They are not just helping women with their abortions; they are enlisting women to perform satanic ritual abortions.

In this way, The Satanic Temple is stepping on a rake of their own making. They are declaring abortion to be a satanic ritual, just like pro-life Christians have warned all along. Sure, TST might think this ritual is little more than a self-help therapy session; but people don’t have to believe in Satan to do his bidding.


SUMMONING TASH

In C. S. Lewis’s Narnia-series classic, The Last Battle (1956), Lewis portrays an epic showdown where a few opportunistic tricksters perform a summoning ritual for a false god named Tash. They don’t even believe in Tash. They go through the motions, pretending to summon Tash, to trick the audience. But lo and behold, Tash arrives. And he is terrifying. Some Tash followers were insincere, playing games on the spiritual battlefield, taking none of this religious stuff seriously. Yet they still served Tash. In the same way, one does not have to believe in Satan to serve him. One does not have to believe in spiritual warfare to be victimized by it either. Worse yet, people can blindly victimize others thinking they are helping. The abortion-choice campaign in the U.S. alone has devoured over 65,000,000 innocent casualties, largely under the banner of empowering women.[35] Slick marketing or a slippery slope, it’s the same difference. Murderous evil can march under right-wing or left-wing banners, religious or secular, human or divine. Yet the test for discerning evil is not in winsome rhetoric, party allegiance, or good intentions, but whether that act is in fact evil.

It matters little whether TST advocates believe in a literal Satan, or in ritual child sacrifice. They can perform child sacrifice to Satan all the same. In this way, TST is inadvertently embracing some of the most pointed critiques against abortion-choice.

People can be casualties, and unwittingly create casualties, without even knowing a war is raging. People can do all sorts of consequential things, without recognizing the weight of their actions till it is too late. They can even sacrifice living human beings to a false god and a real demon, without believing in gods or demons.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Satanic Temple is predictably doing what they have done before, exploiting their cartoonishly dark and villainous branding to agitate the public and pester the Christian Right into a judicial showdown. Only this time, they have gone so far to bait the Christian Right; they have come full circle. They stepped into the crosshairs of one of the fiercest critiques abortion-choice has ever faced. All those abortions they helped facilitate, killing new human beings every time, and all the harms to women emotionally, socially, and physically because of those abortions — all of that behavior will ultimately weigh on every Satanic Temple member (or anyone else) who helps make it happen. I don’t mean to sound like a fear-baiter. I just say that as a warning against the hubris of scientifically ill-informed activism. No amount of good intentions can redeem bad policy. And for all the value found in bodily autonomy, which TST affirms, it does not excuse deliberately killing tiny, innocent, defenseless human beings. If we, as a society, are going to live up to the huge responsibility of humanitarianism, we need to prioritize protecting the most defenseless members of society from discrimination, oppression, and especially targeted killing. That includes sex-selective killing, race-based killing, ability-based killing, exploitation of women, and child abuse. Abortion-choice policy fails on all those accounts.[36] If TST were more consistent with their own stated values, they would walk back this pill-abortion clinic. And if we as a society were more serious about humanitarianism, we could admit that women deserve better than the septic social band-aid of abortion-choice policy.

REFERENCES:

[1] Joe Bukuras, “Judge Orders PA District to Allow After School Satan Club to Meet on School Grounds,” Catholic News Agency, May 4, 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254246/judge-orders-pa-district-to-allow-after-school-satan-club-to-meet-on-school-grounds.

[2] James Farrell, “Why a Satanic Holiday Display at the Iowa Capitol Building Has Been Allowed to Stay Up Despite Backlash,” Forbes, December 13, 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2023/12/13/why-a-satanic-holiday-display-at-the-iowa-capitol-building-has-been-allowed-to-stay-up-despite-backlash/.

[3] Daniel Payne, “Satanic Temple Loses Lawsuit against Indiana Pro-life Law,” Catholic News Agency, October 27, 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255839/satanic-temple-loses-lawsuit-against-indiana-pro-life-law.

[4] “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple (2023), accessed January 10, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic.

[5] Co-founder of TST Malcom Jarry said, “in 1950, [Supreme Court Justice] Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options and look what happened.” John Lavenburg, “New Mexico’s Bishop’s Shudder at Prospect of ‘Satanic’ Abortion Clinic,” Crux, February 10, 2023, https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2023/02/new-mexicos-bishops-shudder-at-prospect-of-satanic-abortion-clinic.

[6] This reputation for “trolling” appears in their “Frequently Asked Questions” page. They don’t evade accusations of “trolling” and deny it’s merely for attention. TST, “Frequently Asked Questions: Is TST a Media Stunt/Hoax/Trolling, Etc.?,” The Satanic Temple, c. 2019, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq. For an unofficial list of TST activist trolling, see “Timeline of The Satanic Temple,” SFGate, January 9, 2019, https://www.sfgate.com/nation/slideshow/Timeline-of-the-Satanic-Temple-188753.php.

[7] Mark Oppenheimer, “A Mischievous Thorn in the Side of Conservative Christianity,” New York Times, July 11, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-conservative-christianity.html.

[8] “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets.

[9] “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple.

[10] Or medication-induced abortion, also known as chemical abortion, medical abortion, and pill abortion (by the “abortion pill”). For TST’s explanation of medication abortion, see “Medication Abortion,” TST Health (2023), accessed January 10, 2024, https://www.tsthealth.org/resources#medicationabortion.

[11] See “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” TST Health, accessed January 10, 2024, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63b68c961da991700b94e8b7/t/63eac53263f3c063df3e1675/1676330291874/TST+Health+-+Satanic+Abortion+Ritual+Flyer-2.pdf.

[12] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), Majority Opinion Justice Samuel Alito, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf.

[13] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113.

[14] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html.

[15] See “How Is the Satanic Abortion Ritual Legally Protected?” and other (linked) statements in “The Satanic Temple: Religious Reproductive Rights,” The Satanic Temple (c.2023), accessed January 11, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns.

[16] If they utilize religious tax exemptions, they can make even more money. They wouldn’t have to accept payment for abortion services, per se, but merely accept (tax-exempt) donations to run the clinic. As of January 2024, TST is hosting a fundraiser for the clinic. See “Supreme Courtship: A Fundraiser in Support of Samual Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/supreme-courtship.

[17] The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a clear example of this “secular state” interpretation of religious freedom, nicknamed here as “separation of church and state.”

[18] The “Lemon Test” (Lemon v Kurtzman, 1973) notwithstanding; Supreme Court history has favored a broad sense of “freedom of religion” where people are not forced by the state to participate in religious activity but, if they choose, can freely and publicly exercise their religion as an individual and communal expression of their 1st Amendment rights. For example, see Cantwell v Connecticut (1940); WV Board of Education v Barnett (1943); Emerson v Board of Education (1947); Torcaso v Watkins (1961); Sherbert v Verner (1963); Lynch v Donnelly (1984); Oregon v Smith (1990); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014); and Kennedy v Bremerton (2022).

[19] Satanic groups that affirm magic include LaVeyan Satanism (Church of Satan), Temple of Set, Luciferians, the Order of Nine Angels, and others. Unofficially, even the Satanic Temple allows magical practice among its members. If a TST member practiced magic, that’s not heresy or heterodoxy for them, it’s just not formally affirmed by TST. See, e.g., “Can I Join TST If I Have Supernatural Beliefs?,” FAQ, The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq.

[20] See “Can I Join TST If I Have Supernatural Beliefs?” Archaeological remains confirm that human sacrifice occurred in Mesoamerica, mostly victimizing military-age males but with about five percent of them being children. Lizzy Wade, ““Feeding the Gods: Hundreds of skulls Reveal Massive Scale of Human Sacrifice in Aztec Capital,” Science, June 21, 2018, https://www.science.org/content/article/feeding-gods-hundreds-skulls-reveal-massive-scale-human-sacrifice-aztec-capital.

Similar archaeological findings confirm that child sacrifice occurred and was well known in the ancient world. Robin Ngo, “Did the Carthaginians Really Practice Infant Sacrifice,” Biblical Archaeological Society, July 27, 2020, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/did-the-carthaginians-really-practice-infant-sacrifice/.

These findings reinforce biblical reports that disdainfully describe this practice as an abomination (see, e.g., Lev. 20:2–5; Isa. 30:33; Jer. 19:12). It even becomes an indictment against Israel when the people and their kings adopt neighboring pagan religions, including ritual child sacrifice (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 28:1–4; Jer. 32:35). In some parts of the world child sacrifice is still practiced in recent times. Tonny Onyulo, “In This Nation, Children’s Body Parts Are Sacrificed for Witchcraft,” USA Today, May 1, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/01/uganda-human-children-sacrifice/100741148/.

While child sacrifice is reasonably well proven, it is more difficult to establish verified ties between Satanism and child sacrifice. The “Satanic Panic” of the late 1970’s and 1980’s muddied the waters here, undoubtedly sensationalizing and likely exaggerating the threat of “Satanic Ritual Abuse.” One Justice Department report on Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) explains the conundrum, “Although evidence increasingly shows SRA exists, clinicians working with individual patients cannot be sure if they are dealing with fact or fantasy.“ C. A. Ross, “Satanic Ritual Abuse: Principles of Treatment,” U.S. Department of Justice (1995), https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/satanic-ritual-abuse-principles-treatment.

Nevertheless, from a Christian perspective, all the false gods who feed on child sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Molech, Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, etc.) are derivations more or less of Satan — whether being different “infernal names” for Satan and his hoards, or being false gods embodying the adversarial, false, and ungodly aims of Satan’s minions (see, Anton Levay, Satanic Bible [San Francisco: William Morrow paperbacks], 43–45). Even when some self-identified Satanists like the Order of Nine Angels allegedly endorse “human sacrifice,” since they are a dark society, cloaked in mystery, it’s difficult to tell what is mere talk, gossip, and legend, versus what is real. Moreover, the TST could even formally disavow all child sacrifice, using “ritual” language entirely as a judicial ruse, yet if they’re facilitating child-killing under the banner of Satanism, they’re still doing Satan’s bidding — serving a literal Satan whom they don’t believe in.

[21] “The Satanic Temple: Religious Reproductive Rights,” at: https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns?gclid=Cj0KCQiAn-2tBhDVARIsAGmStVl2_YhcBMVfAzcuEXhrZ2vtuY5_RmtL5XsliAjklaSeXx-pCJ2TG_MaAr5vEALw_wcB

[22] Tenets V and I, respectively, in “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets.

[23] Margaret M. Gary and Donna J. Harrison, “Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy 40, 2 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1G481, full paper is accessible via American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, https://www.aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MifeSAEharrison-pdf-copy.pdf; see also American College of Pediatricians, “Chemical Abortions: With and Without Medical Supervision,” Issues in Law & Medicine 38, 1 (2023): 77–106, https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/articles/chemical-abortions-with-and-without-medical-supervision/.

[24] Gary and Harrison explain, “Ectopic pregnancy is an absolute contraindication to the use of mifepristone.” Gary and Harrison, “Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient”; see also “Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy through 10 Weeks Gestation,” U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), March 3, 2023, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation; cf. Julia Oltman et al., “Have We Overlooked the Role of Mifepristone for the Medical Management of Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy?, Human Reproduction 38, Issue 8, (2023): 1445–1448, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead116.

[25] Ingrid Skop, “The Evolution of ‘Self-Managed’ Abortion: Does the Safety of Women Seeking Abortion Even Matter Anymore?,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, March 1, 2022, https://lozierinstitute.org/the-evolution-of-self-managed-abortion/.

[26] “Practice Bulletin 181: Prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 130, no. 2 (2017), 481–483, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002232.

[27] Skop, “The Evolution of Self-Managed Abortion.”

[28] Skop, “The Evolution of Self-Managed Abortion.”

[29] American College of Pediatricians, “Chemical Abortions: With and Without Medical Supervision.”

[30] Christina A. Cirucci, Kathi A. Aultman, Donna J. Harrison, “Mifepristone Adverse Events Identified by Planned Parenthood in 2009 and 2010 Compared to Those in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and Those Obtained Through the Freedom of Information Act,” Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology 8 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1177/23333928211068919.

[31] “The Abortion Pill,” Planned Parenthood, accessed January 8, 2024, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill.

[32] “The Abortion Pill,” Planned Parenthood.

[33] Maarit Niinimäki et al., “Immediate Complications after Medical Compared with Surgical Termination of Pregnancy,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 114, no. 4 (2009): 795–804, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b5ccf9; Ushma D. Upadhyay et al., “Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications after Abortion,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 125, no. 1 (2015): 175–183, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000603. For a summary of the increased risks involved in medication abortion over surgical abortion, see “Fact Sheet: Risks and Complications of Medical Abortion,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, July 19, 2022 (updated August 23, 2023), https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-risks-and-complications-of-chemical-abortion/.

[34] Coercion, like consent, can be difficult to prove, especially if the victim is still protecting their abuser, or still under threat from them. Nevertheless, Reardon, et al., summarize their findings saying: “33% identified [the abortion] as wanted, 43% as accepted but inconsistent with their values and preferences, and 24% as unwanted or coerced.” See, David C. Reardon, Katherine A. Rafferty, Tessa Longbons, “The Effects of Abortion Decision Rightness and Decision Type on Women’s Satisfaction and Mental Health,” Cureus 15, no. 5 (2023), abstract, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38882. David C. Reardon, et al., “Hidden Epidemic: Nearly 70% of Abortions are Coerced, Unwanted, Or Inconsistent with Women’s Preferences,” Lozier Institute (15 May 2023), https://lozierinstitute.org/hidden-epidemic-nearly-70-of-abortions-are-coerced-unwanted-or-inconsistent-with-womens-preferences/

[35] Based on trends in “Abortion Statistics: United States and Trends,” National Right to Life, January 2023, https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/23StatsFS.pdf.

[36] Abortion is literally fatal child abuse. Sex-selective, race-based, and ability-based abortion are all legal in the U.S.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella, Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/48mii4y

 

/by

Is Your Church A Personality Cult, Part 2

In part one, we looked at how “cult” can refer to a group’s heretical theology (“theological cult”) or to its dangerous practices (“sociological cult). A personality cult is the second type, with personality-driven problems centering on central leader. To discuss the signs of a personality cult, we used the name named Al, as he sees himself as the Alpha, the #1, the head-honcho. And depending on how narcissistic he is, he might honestly believe he’s the only hope for this church’s success. Then we looked six signs of a personality cult:

1. One Charismatic Leader Is THE Face Of The Church

2. Narcissistic Leader

3. Authoritarian Leadership-Model

4. Other Leaders In The Church Are “Yes Men”

5. “Lone Wolf” Approach To Decision-Making

6. Vindictive Church Discipline

Now let’s look at 6 more signs of a personality cult.

7. NO CRITIQUE IS ALLOWED INSIDE THE CHURCH

Another common element in personality cults is how they cannot handle healthy critique. There is no tolerance for members critiquing Al’s theology, teachings, or vision for the church. He wants agreement, solidarity, even uniformity, and he can exert a tremendous amount of pressure to that end. Church members don’t necessarily have to dress alike and live in a commune. But they are strongly encouraged to support the leadership no matter what. Any questioning, disagreement, or failure to cooperate is treated like a malicious power play or as a personal failing. Critics are either villainized or treated as immature, selfish, doubters tangled up in private sin. A bevy of Scriptures can be cited (out of context), supporting this stifling uniformity culture too. “Do not grumble against one another” (James 5:9, NET). “Do not judge so that you will not be judged” (Matthew 7:1). “Do everything without grumbling or arguing” (Philippians 2:14). And of course, “Don’t touch my chosen ones! Don’t harm my prophets!” (Psalm 105:15).

Those verses are not talking about a principled and gracious critique of false teaching or wise critique of a foolish decision. And we could just as easily cite Scriptural evidence about how we should “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3), “expose” works of darkness (Eph 5:11), and “fight the good fight with faith and a good conscience” (1 Timothy 1:18-20). Plus, the Apostle Paul himself models righteous critique of church leaders when he rebukes St. Peter over a church matter (Galatians 2:11-21)!

8. There’s NO ACCOUNTABILITY FROM OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

Personality cults have little room for critique from their members and even less room for accountability from those outside the congregation. Personality cults may have strained and broken relationships with their parent churches or they may just have a lot of defenses in place to keep denominational authorities in the dark. As for Al, he doesn’t go out looking for accountability partners either. He doesn’t like to have his ideas challenged, and he has no interest in having anyone call him on the carpet. He may have several layers of defense mechanisms to keep people from getting that close to him, yet ironically, he can probably name a half-dozen people whom he claims “hold him accountable.” If he has anything close to an “accountability partner” that person is wrapped around his finger, having long-been manipulated into compliance. Or he just keeps them at arm’s length, never letting them know enough gritty details to have an informed opinion about his personal life or sin-struggles.

9. CULTURE OF SILENCE

Cultures of silence stem from our self-serving biases. We all try to protect our reputation. We all want to be seen in a positive light. We all have this self-serving bias. But personality cults take it way farther than healthy people and churches would. People normally try to hide embarrassing and incriminating details. That’s just how we are. But personality cults take that self-preservation to another level by assuming the best of their leaders, denying all allegations, blaming the victims, and (sometimes) covering up their crimes.

Cultures of silence emerge in personality cults, in part, because Al isn’t humble or willing enough to endure correction. He can wander way off course without any serious accountability pulling him back on track. The further he veers into authoritarianism, and narcissism, the more likely he is going to do something grossly immoral or even criminal because he now thinks he can get away with anything. In many cases, he can. Wicked and criminal behavior goes unchecked because he built a framework of suppression in the church that disciplines whistle-blowers into silence and hides dirty laundry to “protect the ministry” and “preserve unity.”

Group leaders, staff, and leadership boards all have to report to Al before they say anything publicly. Al treats church resources like propaganda, using social media, rumors mills, bulletins, newsletters, and sermons to “get ahead of the narrative” and dictate the “official” story to the church. Members are discouraged from reporting any mischief to outside authorities (unless it benefits Al). Any investigations are conducted in-house often through yes-men that Al hand-picked. Al and his staff are not trying to make things right so much as they are trying to control the narrative and save face.

10. SECRETIVE FINANCES

Another bad sign for churches is when they hide their finances. Healthy churches recognize the need for financial transparency if for no other reason than that they need accountability to reduce temptation. Many churches have crashed and burned because someone was skimming money, or because they just didn’t handle their money wisely. Churches should have nothing to hide with their budget and financial records. In personality cults, Al might never let the congregation see the real budget. Or worse, there might not be a budget because he expects everyone to trust him to make all the financial decisions directly. When financial matters are cloaked in secrecy, it often means the leaders are hiding something. For example, they might be way over budget, have too much debt, Al might be paid too much, or other staffers paid too little. Or perhaps the budget just doesn’t reflect the values of a healthy church.

11. NO SHARED PULPIT

Another bad sign is when the pastor rarely ever shares the pulpit or any related teaching opportunities. He is okay with letting people cover responsibilities that don’t interest him. For example, he may have no interest in the children’s ministry, or in public works projects. So, he might happily share those teaching and leadership opportunities with others. But when it comes to visibly leading the church, from the front, through sermons, vision-casting, and overseeing important meetings, he always takes the head seat at the table. He does not share the pulpit often, but whenever he does, it is either in very small doses or it’s with close allies who are wrapped around his finger.

Al might even let another leader in the church preach, especially when it’s an unpopular topic. For example, it could be about disfellowshipping someone, or fund-raising for the building campaign, or announcing some bad news. The charismatic leader isn’t sharing the pulpit graciously, but out of self-interest. He’s having someone else do his dirty work, so he can keep his hands clean. If he wants the church to double their giving toward a new sanctuary and raising his own pay, he can use the head of the deacon board to preach, heavy-handed, on “sacrificial giving.” When people complain, predictably, they will to the pastor but about the head deacon. Effectively, he’s directing the complaint department to someone else’s desk. Generally, personality cult leaders don’t like sharing the pulpit, and when they do there are strings attached.

12. ABUSE

At this point, it almost goes without saying that personality cults are prime candidates for abuse whether physical, verbal, spiritual, or emotional abuse. When a narcissistic charismatic authoritarian leader is in charge, abusive behavior isn’t far behind. He may not start out abusive. He may have been an innocent, ministry-minded man-of-God in the past. But he now enjoys power and attention a bit too much, and like an addict, he molds his environment and manipulates his relationships to protect his addiction. Also like an addict, he is liable to escalate things resorting to more and more aggressive measures to exert his power, feed his ego, or silence his critics. And that can mean abuse.

***

If you have gone through this list and you think your church might be a personality cult then you don’t have to just roll-over and take it. Awareness is the first step. If you are in a safe and stable place spiritually, and you have the freedom to pull-away then you may just need to transfer to a healthier church or perhaps alert the proper authorities, like the police or presbytery. If, however, you have struggled and suffered in a toxic church then you may need more than a new church.

 

Resources for recovery:

Spiritual abuse? – Spiritual Abuse Resources (SAR)

Sexual abuse? – Lydia Discipleship Ministries

Substance abuse? – National Association for Christian Recovery (NACR)

Want More Resourcs on Abusive Churches?

David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse [Book]

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella, Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

 

/by

Is it Biblical to Be a Gay Christian?

Imagine a porcupine. He’s waddling around with his long pointy quills. He’s harmless, even cute until he gets scared or offended. Then he becomes an angry pincushion. Now image this porcupine is giant-sized, like a dinosaur. He’s bumping into things, knocking things over, leaving huge piercing quills behind him as if marking his territory. People and animals just stay out of his way for fear of getting trampled, stabbed, or otherwise canceled. Now imagine this porcupine is hyper-sensitive. He’s reactive, easily offended, easily frightened, distrusting, and very aggressive when upset. Now imagine he’s rainbow colored and you’re tasked with giving this huge moody multi-colored pincushion a great big hug! That’s what it feels like answering the question: “Is it biblical to be a Gay Christian?”

This is the kind of topic where it feels like any move is the wrong move. You can’t really hug a huge temperamental rainbow porcupine. The LGBTQ+ movement has grown into a cultural juggernaut, dictating new legislation, directing media, invading public and private schools, coopting corporations, butting into the healthcare system, reshaping social norms, even changing the English language. One of those linguistic innovations is the identity statement: “Gay Christian.” Our question today is whether it’s biblical to be a “Gay Christian”?

Loveless Truth or Truthless Love?
There is no way forward without risking injury and without offending someone. As Biblical Christians, all we can realistically hope to do with this triggering topic is to speak truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). As we try to answer whether the concept of “Gay Christian” is biblical, we do well to remember that we cannot responsibly sacrifice truth or love. We need both. And we need the wisdom to balance and leverage them for our best chance at pointing people to the God of the Bible. If we compromise too much we get truthless love. If we’re tactless and mean, we get loveless truth. Both distort Christ’s message. Both drive people away from the Faith. Loveless truth is no better than truthless love.

As Christians we have every reason to major on both truth and love, to balance them by way of wisdom. Sometimes it’s fine to be sharp and forceful with a truth jab. Other times we risk causing more spiritual injury in our delivery than they felt from their ailment. LGBTQ+ people can be incredibly diverse, but they are all human. That means at least three things: (1) they are hurting, (2) they’re sinners just like you and me, and (3) their only hope of salvation is in Christ alone. We’re in the same boat. With this in mind let’s see if we can bring some clarity to this prickly issue.

What does “Gay Christian” even mean?
The phrase “gay Christian” can point a few different directions. First it can be a description. It’s describing someone who is Christian and is same-sex attracted (whether practicing or not). It would be like saying, “I am a male-Christian,” “an Texan-Christian” or “a married, heterosexual, masculine, Christian who likes hot sauce, and weightlifting, and thinks about the Roman Empire at least once a day.” Descriptive language is perhaps the broadest, and least-problematic way to understand the phrase “gay Christian.” As a description, the phrase is just pointing out any true claims about a person. There is still a problem with this sense of “Gay Christian,” but we’ll get to that later.

Second, “Gay Christian” can be a group identity statement roughly equivalent to, “I affiliate with a brand of ‘Christianity’ that endorses homosexual practice.” Typically, that includes supporting gay-marriage, left-leaning politics, and progressive theology. Whether that brand of ‘Christianity’ is, in fact, Christian – that’s a different question for a different day. The point is, “gay Christian” could be (1) a description or a (2) group identity.

Third, “Gay Christian” can also be a personal identity statement. It’s saying that that individual, in his heart of hearts, his essence, his soul, is a “Gay Christian.” This is more than just a description. We can describe how a person is without identifying what that person is. Descriptive language alone doesn’t necessarily point out what defines the person. But when the phrase “Gay Christian” refers to one’s personal identity, that individual is defined as both gay and Christian in that order. “Gay” isn’t just a secondary, accidental, or unnecessary quality. It defines them. It’s not just how he is, or what he does. It’s who he is.

Critiquing the idea of “Gay Christian”
Of those three categories: (1) Description, (2) Group Identity, and (3) Personal identity, I will focus on that third sense: “Gay Christian” as one’s “personal identity.” There are problems with all three – since the word “gay” doesn’t only mean “same-sex attracted,” but often means more than that. It can refer to homosexual practice, gay lifestyle, gay-affirming politics and culture, and so forth. That sense of “gay” is a mismatch when paired with orthodox Christianity. Of course, people have tried to argue, from Scripture, that there’s no inherent problem with combining those, but that has never been a historic orthodox convention in Christianity.

What else do we need to know about LGBTQ+ issues?
Find out in “Correct, Not Politically Correct” by Dr. Frank Turek

 

Partial Truths
First we can commend this terminology for identifying “Christian” at the core of one’s identity. Christianity isn’t just something people toss on top of the pile, along with everything else in their lives. Biblically-speaking, to become a Christian means replacing all the other claims on your identity with God’s claim on you. Becoming a Christian means you are a new creation, “In Christ,” adopted into the family of God, no longer lost on your own, but found and claimed, no longer slaves to sin, but citizens of a new heavenly kingdom, (2 Cor 5:17; 1 John 3:1-2; Gal 5:1; Phil 3:20). All that means Christians are effectively redefined from the moment of salvation forward. The Apostle Paul says it this way:

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20, NIV

So, the phrase “Gay Christian” is partly correct in the sense that Christianity isn’t just a descriptor or group affiliation, it’s an expression of one’s essence. It is one’s fundamental identity. Our identity is Christ-centered, not self-centered. Hence the name “Christianity” – we are “little Christs.”

That partial truth however, is not enough to redeem the phrase, “Gay Christian.” There are at least four problems with the phrase that, I suggest, disqualify the concept from standard usage in orthodox Christian circles.

Four Problems with Identifying as a “Gay Christian”

  1. It’s Unclear: Advocates for the phrase “Gay Christian” have been known to say that “Clarity is kindness.”[1] But the word “Gay” is ambiguous. It could communicate same sex attraction or homosexual practice. So, the expression “Gay Christian” creates confusion where clarity is needed. It would be more kind to replace that confusing label rather than unwittingly suggest to people that Christianity embraces homosexual practice.
  2. It’s Jesus+: Biblically speaking, Christians find their ultimate identity in Christ Jesus alone (Sola Christus). Not in Jesus plus our good works, plus nationalism, plus identity politics, or plus our sexual orientation. Whatever other features may describe and distinguish us (white, male, hetero/homosexual, American, nerdy, bookworm, pastor, backup dancer, etc.) all of these must be submitted to Christ’s lordship. No secondary identity should compete with His sovereign claim over us. This is important because our very identity can be an idol (not to mention a football in the game of identity politics). The title “gay Christian” adds to one’s identity in Christ by putting something in front of Christ. At best this is confused for mixing a secondary “identity” with one’s primary identity. At worst it makes an identity-idol out of one’s sexual orientation. By the way, this objection applies equally well to straight people. Neither hetero- nor homosexuality should compete with Christ in defining us.
  3. It can mean sin: The word “gay” can refer to temptation or practice. As a temptation, it’s not necessarily sinful but can easily become sinful depending on how one interacts with their temptation: surrendering to it, fantasizing about it, fixating on it, encouraging it, etc. And “gay” in the sense of homosexual practice is sin (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-28; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7). So, combining all that together, the phrase “Gay Christian” is deeply problematic for affixing to one’s Christianity something that might be sin, can readily turn into sin, and is itself a desire for sin. How could any of those affiliations with sin rightly serve in defining one’s identity in Christ? All those ties to sin are what Christ is delivering people from (in sanctification). That’s the identity of our old self, from back when we were “slaves to sin” (Rom 6:6). It’s not out new self since we are “declared righteous,” and that is what Christ takes on Himself since he has “become sin for us” so that we can be called holy and children of God (2 Cor 5:21). In Christ we’re not defined by our sin or by temptation to sin but by Christ Himself who saves us from sin.
  4. It’s Morally Absurd: Stepping back for a moment, the three senses of “Gay Christian” that we mentioned are all absurd. Whether it’s a “descriptor,” a “group identity,” or a “personal identity” the phrase “Gay Christian” is incoherent because we can’t just add any descriptor in front of “Christian” and still have a coherent, theologically sound, and Christ-honoring concept. This becomes abundantly clear when we start adding to our Christian identity other temptations which also have no righteous vent – Zoophile Christian, Pedo Christian, Voyeuristic Christian, Klepto Christian, or Homicidal Christian. I’m not saying that gay people are group-affiliated with all these evils. These are just examples of how absurd it is to combine our Christianity identity with a temptation to sin and somehow think that’s a legitimate pairing.

Why Words Matter
It bears repeating that we’re not just talking about descriptive statements. “Marybeth does this, looks like that, and is tempted by these things.” We’re talking about identity statements. Identity statements are attempts at expressing who we really are, not just how we happen to be at the moment. Speaking of repetition, if we repeat statements defining ourselves a certain way, that can have a fortifying affect on our sense of self. Repetition forms neural pathways, creating habits of thought, gradually shaping our character, and convincing us of the truth of something even if it’s not true.

The word we use to describe or identify ourselves can shape our sense of self by changing, limiting, or expanding how we think of ourselves. Our self-identifying terms lend momentum pushing us in their direction. Scripture has a lot to say against coarse insulting language and taming the tongue (Eph 5:4; Col 3:8; James 1:26). That applies to “self-talk” and identity statements too. None of this bodes well for the phrase “Gay Christian.” A better alternative would be to just receive our identify as “Christian,” or “Christ-Follower,” “child of God,” or “Disciple.” These acknowledge that as Christians we no longer define ourselves. Christ defines us. We can still describe ourselves in truthful ways as gay-attracted, straight, celibate-single, good friend, poker player, tea-drinker, beat-boxer, meat head, etc. But it’s vitally important to distinguish secondary descriptors from one’s primary identity in Christ. And one of the most clear, helpful, and theologically responsible ways to do that is to put no competitors beside Christ. We are Christians, not hyphenated faithers or adjectival disciples. We don’t follow Jesus+. We follow Jesus. He defines our identity at a deeper level than any part of our sin nature, human nature, or natural fact about us.

We are Christians, not hyphenated faithers or adjectival disciples. We don’t follow Jesus+. We follow Jesus. He defines our identity at a level that’s deeper than any part of our sin nature, our human nature, or any natural fact about us.

 


Endnotes
[1] Preston Sprinkle and Gregory Coles, “Faith, Sexuality, and Gender Conference,” [Conference] Center or Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, (Pella, IA: Third Reformed Church, January 11, 2023).


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated; downloadable pdf, PowerPoint) by Frank Turek
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

 

/by

Is Your Church a Personality Cult? Part 1

Sometimes cults are easy to spot. Most everyone knows about the Jim Jones cult (People’s Temple), or David Koresh’s group in Waco, Texas (Branch Davidians). Those cults are easy to spot because doomsday theology and mass killing tend to make headlines. But some cults aren’t so easy to see. Personality cults can be hard to spot.

When people call a religious group a “cult” it usually means one of two things.

TWO TYPES OF CULTS
Type 1: Theological Cult – heretical theology deviating from core orthodox teachings of that religion. These cults spring from a parent-religion. Ex., Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are cult offshoots of Christianity.

Type 2: Sociological Cult – socially and psychologically dangerous practices like authoritarian and manipulative leadership, social isolation, abuse, threats, blackmail, “mind-control” etc. These may or may not have a parent religion.

This post is about personality cults, which fall under the second type. Personality cults may line up perfectly with historic Christian teaching, have all the right creeds, prayers, liturgy, and so on. But they have dangerous practices centering on a personality-driven leadership model.  Often that means one leader calls all the shots and may resort to underhanded and manipulative behavior to get his (or her) way. Here are the first six out of twelve signs that can help you identify if your church is a personality cult.

SIGNS OF A PERSONALITY CULT

1. One Charismatic Leader Is the Face of the Church

Personality cults center on one primary person, who typically has a magnetic and winsome personality. When he or she speaks, people listen. We’ll call this leader “Alpha” or “Al” for short. Alphas are often gregarious and extroverted, feeding off the respect and praise (or fear) of others. They are charismatic in the sense of persuasive influence. They are often natural leaders, drawing crowds most everywhere they go. Sometimes they are also charismatic in the sense of spiritual gifts (tongues, prophecy, visions, mysticism), but that’s not always the case. Bear in mind, there is nothing wrong with being a leadership-oriented charismatic person. Just because a person has tremendous social power within the church doesn’t mean they are abusing that power. But the more power people have, the more tempting it can be to abuse it, especially when they don’t have any accountability for their actions. Remember, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton, 1887). That’s why personality cults always have a strong personality at the center.

2. Narcissistic Leader

Al isn’t just a charismatic leader, he also has a big ego. I’m not just talking about confidence, and bravado, I’m talking about clinical narcissism. He tends to view all social dynamics as a competition, or a zero-sum game, that he’s trying to win. He can be remarkably crafty and manipulative in navigating social dynamics to acquire more allies, or to silence and cut off anyone who disagrees with him. Al’s ego is too insecure to tolerate a truth-teller disagreeing with him. That’s like having a spy in your ranks or letting an opponent play on your team. Al also craves an approving audience (whether he admits it or not) and if anyone disapproves he can be so devastatingly hurt/angered/indignant that he resorts to extreme measures against them.

Narcissism is fairly common in the U.S., so Al may have come across it naturally. Western cultures tend to reward confident dynamic people with jobs, promotions, and leadership positions. Narcissists exploit that fact. They are experts at talking-big, acting important, and dictating every narrative into a story about how great they are. Narcissistic alphas have tremendous pride about their ability to lead, their vision for the church, and so on. But they lack the humility, maturity, and emotional security to fill out that self-assured pride with actual competence. Likewise, Alphas tend to objectify people. Al may act like he values other people more than himself, as in Philippians 2:3, but he’s really just acting. In reality, he’s often just using people to feed his ego.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,” Philippians 2:3 (NIV).

3. Authoritarian Leadership-Model

Al is also the power broker for the church. Al may delegate minor decisions to other people (especially for matters that don’t interest him). But when it comes to major decisions about church direction, big events, membership policies, church discipline, and especially finances, Al sits at the head of the table. Sometimes Alphas are heavy-handed in exercising authority. But many times they are indirect, manipulative, and evasive. That way they can still get their way while still rationalizing the outcome as a “team effort” or a “group decision.”

Because of Al’s authoritarian role, church discipline is typically a straight-line from him to whomever, he believes, needs correction. Al often bypasses any “due process,” like the checks and balances prescribed in Matthew 18:15-17. In personality cults, church discipline often comes down directly from Al like a monarch declaring an absolute verdict. He may appeal to the elder board, presbytery, or leadership team. But as long as they are just “yes men” (see #4 – Yes Men) and he gets to dictate the narrative, then he still gets what he wants.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)

4. Other Leaders in the Church Are “Yes Men”

Al typically has several other “leaders” on his team, but he doesn’t really share power with them. They may have been invited into leadership, in the past, because they have clout, character and strong leadership ability, but they are only allowed to stay in leadership because they cooperate with Al. He likes them because they “rubber stamp” everything he says.  It’s circular reinforcement. He likes how they rubber stamp everything he proposes, and they like being part of his elite circle of leaders, the few and the proud who have the heart of such an important man.

Some of these cooperators are “yes-men” by nature, that’s their personality type.  They’re peace-keepers who “go along to get along.” Often they enjoy the privilege and status of being in the “inner circle,” so they don’t want to rock the boat. Other times people adapt to a “yes man” mentality because of group pressure, peer culture, or their growing appetite for Al’s approval.

Individually these people might be terrific independent thinkers, courageous, independent, and wise. But, when they get together at an 11am business meeting, and everyone is already hungry for lunch, their resolve may wane. When Al cleverly raises the most controversial proposal at 11:55am, “yes men” culture sinks in and all the “leaders” just follow the crowd, approving anything that lets them finish by noon. “Yes men” don’t have to be “suck-ups” (sycophants), but often they are. Mainly the yes men act as extensions of Al’s authority. They don’t offer any serious challenge, critique, or correction against Al even when he needs it most.

5. “Lone Wolf” Approach to Decision-Making

As much as Al can, he makes decisions directly without any serious input from the rest of the church. In his mind, he sees himself as the hero. Like the dashing and talented quarterback, he thinks of himself as the most important person on the team and the on-field coach. Everyone else’s job is to support Him so he can win the game for them. This direct-decision making style, to him, seems like common sense to him. By making as many decisions as possible by himself, it’s easier and more efficient for everybody. After all, it can keep the whole church working together toward the same unified vision of ministry without wasting time and energy quibbling through business meetings and deliberating over every vote.

6. Vindictive Church Discipline

Church discipline is a Biblical concept (see Titus 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). But in personality cults, church discipline is less like routine healthcare, and more like a spontaneous amputation. It isn’t healthy. It’s often petty and vindictive instead of restorative (Galatians 6:1). Often personality cults, under Al’s leadership, use gossip, shame, and backbiting to publicly humiliate people by either crushing their spirit so they leave forever or putting them in a dangerously vulnerable position for Al to swoop in like their savior and “restore” them (i.e., creating a codependent loyalist). When Al employs church discipline he is not necessarily aiming to use God’s word to correct false teachers (and every earthly teacher makes mistakes), though he may do some of that. Mainly he’s aiming at silencing critics, so the church is united around him. Never mind if those critics are speaking from God’s word, appealing to historic Christian teaching, or expressing humble godly wisdom. If they are criticizing Al or second-guessing his decisions then they are dissenters, trouble-makers, and enemies of the faith. Al can rationalize punishing them with vindictive discipline to protect the fragile unity of his church.

“Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.” Galatians 6:1 (NIV)

For the next six signs of a personality cult
Stay tuned for “Is Your Church a Personality Cult? Part 2”!


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)
Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4 download)
Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Original post: https://bit.ly/46ndmfs

 

/by