Tag Archive for: LGBTQ

Why Drag Isn’t All Fun and Laughs

My “Pride ‘Heroes’” series draws attention to the philosophy and individuals behind the LGBTQ+ Pride movement.[1] At Arizona State University, the campus library commands all who enter to “Celebrate Pride.” This is the only sexual philosophy granted a dedicated month in which the public is commanded to obey. Meanwhile, ASU’s Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts hosts an annual Drag Queen show as part of its ongoing promotion of gender ideology.

 

Why? Because the Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts also holds events for other ideologies and religions as well, such as Christianity. Oh wait—no, that’s not true. It doesn’t do that. It exclusively pushes a radical leftist agenda.

Question: How will that affect federal funding under Trump’s new executive order?

A hero is someone who protects children. Protecting children includes protecting them from blatant falsehoods and from those false teachers who want to confuse them and hinder them from understanding reality. Now let’s look at Drag Queens: are these heroes who simply want to read books to children?  What we find is that the philosophy of Drag cannot escape God’s world.  All humans are made in the image of God, desire a meaningful life, and cannot find that meaning without understanding the created order that God made.  Let’s see how the Drag philosophy defends itself.

What exactly is the “Drag Queen” philosophy?

Isn’t Drag Queen philosophy just people having fun and being their authentic self? No. There are many ways to have fun and be yourself. The Drag Queen philosophy is very explicit about its purpose: to subvert norms and to teach that gender is fluid. In other words, to teach that Christianity and the other theistic religions are false.[2] It denies that there is an objective reality that shapes how we live our lives.

The Drag Queen philosophy rejects God’s creation of male and female; it is purposely contrary to the nature of things. It’s not just harmless entertainment. They often joke, “We’re coming for your children,” but the joke loses its humor when they actually do try to enter libraries and schools to impose their views about gender on young minds.

What Defenders Say

Let’s begin by taking the defenders of Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) at their word—or at least, at their marketing brochure.

  1. Literacy and Engagement

We’re told drag queens are simply performers who make reading fun. The makeup, the wigs, the glitter? All part of the show to get kids excited about books. But here’s the problem: there are many other engaging ways to promote reading that are not tied to a false ideology. We don’t read for the sake of reading; we read to understand what is true. If we train children to associate reading with clearly false ideas about gender, we haven’t helped them overall—we’ve hindered them. We’ve taught them that fiction doesn’t just belong on the page, but in how we view reality.

  1. Inclusion and Diversity

DQSH events are promoted as celebrations of inclusion, where LGBTQ+ families can feel represented and children can learn to “tolerate” diverse expressions of identity. But here’s the irony: just as those families wouldn’t want a conservative Christian showing up to impose his beliefs on them, others have a right to be free from having Drag ideology imposed on their children. The First Amendment protects free expression, but it does not give anyone the right to indoctrinate other people’s children under the guise of public programming. That path doesn’t build a diverse society—it builds resentment and antagonism. The push for “inclusion” must still respect boundaries.

  1. Teaching Gender as a Social Construct

This is the most revealing justification of all. Drag queens, as avatars of gender fluidity, are used to teach kids that gender roles are flexible, performative, and non-binary. The message? There’s no “he” or “she”—only what you feel and how you present. There is no truth, only “my truth” which is to say “my feelings.”

This is the heart of it: the desire to inculcate children with a philosophy that denies nature, creation order, objective reality, and even basic reason itself. Drag isn’t just dress-up. It’s a worldview, and its aim is to deconstruct the categories that are essential for human flourishing. The Drag Queen philosophy is clear about opposing God and his created order. Here’s a truth about every human who has ever lived: they all had exactly one biological mother and one biological father.

The problem is, homosexual men cannot have children of their own. They can try to adopt someone else’s child. Or, they can pay a woman—often a disadvantaged woman who needs the money—to rent her womb so that one of them can use his sperm to fertilize an egg (meaning the child is unrelated to the other man). But together they cannot produce a child. And so, instead, they feel the need to teach other people’s children.

This is the self-contradiction in their philosophy. On the one hand, they deny that there are any essences. They insist on radical nominalism: there are only particulars, no universals. There is only the self-declared individual who proclaims, “I am a they/them,” and no such thing as human nature, male and female, mother and father.

And yet, they still have the natural desire to pass their worldview on to children.

Their childless philosophy still conforms—unwittingly—to the natural order they claim to reject.

They cannot escape the creational pattern established by God. No amount of thinking, feeling, “authenticity” or “identity expression” can make two men conceive a child. No amount of “I wish, I wish” can erase the basic fact that civilization depends on a man and a woman teaching the children that come from their union. We live in God’s world. And we cannot escape His reality.

We live in God’s world. And we cannot escape His reality.

But this philosophy openly tells us that they are working to subvert God’s creation and replace God with their own sexual desires.  They say “fight evil with love” but reverse the meaning of those words as they actively work to teach children to disobey God.

What’s the Harm?

Far from helping children, the drag philosophy introduces serious philosophical harms. Let’s consider just a few:

  1. Normalization of Gender Confusion

Drag, by definition, is an exaggerated parody of womanhood, often rooted in sexualized adult performance. It insults women by treating them as unreal, as if a man in flamboyant costume is just as much a woman as an actual woman. In fact, they deny that there are any “actual women;” a woman can be any man who thinks he is a woman.

Presenting this to children is not “tolerance.” It is the deliberate confusion of the categories God created—male and female. It teaches children that gender is not a given but a costume, not reality but performance. This is not education. It’s miseducation. It is incoherent thinking that believes “if I think it then it is true and the rest of society must conform to my inability to understand reality.”

  1. Undermining Parental and Religious Authority

Many of these events are marketed directly to children. Parents are sometimes invited—but often just bypassed. The unspoken message is clear: your parents and your pastor are outdated. Tune them out. Tune in instead to the man in heels reading Heather Has Two Mommies. But on what basis should Drag Queens get access to other people’s children? If they tell children not to listen to their parents, why would anyone ever listen to a Drag Queen who lives a life of confusion and denial of reality?

This philosophy has no great achievements to point to—no contributions to human flourishing on which it can stand. It is, at bottom, simply men in exaggerated costumes claiming that their greatest accomplishment is refusing to follow any moral norms and instead doing whatever they feel. That’s not authenticity—it’s the height of immaturity and a lack of personal discipline.

Drag ideology depends on gaining access to the children of others because it is fundamentally sterile—it cannot produce its own future. And yet, it wants to disciple a generation. To do that, it must undermine the family and the faith communities that stand in its way.

Drag ideology depends on gaining access to the children of others because it is fundamentally sterile—it cannot produce its own future.

  1. Boundary Testing

Drag has always been about pushing boundaries. Its adherents are quite open about this. It is rooted in burlesque, rebellion, and sexual subversion. Bringing it into children’s spaces may not always be criminal, but it is certainly corrosive to innocence. It introduces adult themes into tender minds. And that alone should be reason enough to keep it out of your public library’s children’s room. The Drag Queen has failed to understand the basics about reality, including what is and is not appropriate for children.[3]

  1. Neo-Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism

Now we’re getting to the philosophical roots. Drag fits seamlessly into a broader project to deconstruct creation order. At its core is a rejection of nature itself—a denial that reality has a given structure. In place of divinely revealed identity—male and female, made in God’s image—we’re offered expressive individualism: You are whatever you say you are. Reality must conform to your feelings. Biology is oppression. Nature is optional.

The drag queens can rage against God’s created order of male and female all they want, but each of them came from the union of a man and woman.

This is nothing new. It’s simply a remix of ancient Gnosticism and modern Marxism. Like Gnosticism, it treats the body as a problem—believing we are souls trapped in the wrong body, and that the solution is to cut, reshape, and mutilate the body to fit our desires. Like Marxism, it sees the family and the church as oppressive structures that must be overthrown. And like both, it cannot build anything—it can only tear down.

A Better Story Hour

Now imagine a different kind of story hour. Imagine a public university that doesn’t impose this sex philosophy on its students. One where children are told that they are not mistakes or blank slates, but created by a loving and wise God. That their bodies are good as they are. That the world is meaningful. That truth is not invented but discovered. Imagine a child learning not that gender is a costume, but that they are fearfully and wonderfully made. That sin is real—but so is grace. That the answer to confusion is not doubling down on meaningless and self-contradictory self-expression, but humbling oneself to seek wisdom. That would be a story worth telling. And it wouldn’t need glitter or wigs to hold a child’s attention—just truth, spoken clearly, in love.

Let the Drag Queen Story Hour promoters keep their costume parties. We’ll keep the real stories. The true ones. The ones that don’t melt under the heat of reality like a rhinestone wig on an August afternoon in Phoenix.

We live in God’s world, he has put eternity in our hearts, and we will never find lasting meaning until we look to him and his created order (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

References:

[1] Editor’s note: Dr. Anderson’s “Heroes of Pride Month” series includes, Intro to Pride Month,  features Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Drag Queens, and the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus.

[2] Editor’s Note: Historic Christianity traditionally teaches that homosexual practice and crossdressing are  wrong, and that natural marriage and biblical sexual ethics are prescribed for society (Deuteronomy 22:5; Romans 1:26-28; Matthew 19:1-12). There are, however, schismatic churches and perhaps even whole denominations that identify as “Christian” in roughly the same way that trans people identify as a different gender from their natural sex. People can try to socially construct their identity just as they may try fabricate their own brand of Christianity, but if it contradicts what God has made – be it the Church or biological gender – then “trans” roughly translates as “fake.”

[3] Editor’s Note: Even some drag queens have been speaking out against Drag Queen Story Hour as it has “pedo-vibes” for putting crossdressing gender-bending burlesque dancers in close contact with elementary children, and that See here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jF7W3N1T7U

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Ix1bpq

/by

The Heroes of Pride Month

I have been writing a series about Pride Month to highlight the truth behind the lives of the LGBTQ+ figures we are commanded to celebrate.  Young Christians considering attending state universities should be aware of the kind of propaganda they will encounter and how to respond in a bold yet loving manner that affirms the free offer of salvation through Christ to all.  These so-called “heroes” lived lives of “activism” and “helping the marginalized.” They are held up as people whom the young should imitate. ASU’s library commands us to “Celebrate” them. ASU is currently the largest state university in the country, weighing in at 180,000 students, so it has a sizable impact for this sex philosophy. Yet when we take an honest look at their lives, we see that they were hypocrites who harmed the very marginalized they claimed to defend. They offer no ideas on how to receive a new heart or find redemption. They lead their followers with promises of liberation, only to march them straight into the utter meaninglessness of “do as I say, not as I do” and imprisonment to sin.

 

Judith Butler is one of the most celebrated intellectuals behind the modern LGBTQ+ movement. A philosopher by trade, Butler has been crowned the patron saint of gender fluidity. She is best known for teaching us that gender isn’t something we are—it’s something we perform. Like a Broadway show, but with less coherence and worse costumes.

But before she denied the existence of objective reality as a mere power relation, Butler was raised in a Jewish home in Cleveland. As a form of discipline, her parents sent her to Hebrew school, hoping, perhaps, that a little theology would straighten her out. It did the opposite. There, she began grilling rabbis with tough philosophical questions: Why can only men read the Torah in services? Who decides what the Torah means? Underneath these lay a deeper question, one that shaped her thinking for decades: Why does God permit evil—especially in light of Jewish suffering?

The Came Hegel

She didn’t find answers that satisfied her. So she turned, instead, to Hegel. From him, she learned that all is one, that distinctions are illusions, and that we are climbing a dialectical staircase toward divinization. Everything is performance (all is one). Even performance is performance. Followed consistently, only the ego and its ideas/desires exist; there is no material world by which to test ideas and define simple concepts like “man and woman.” The psychoanalytic process is no longer about integration into reality but about conforming reality into whatever the ego wants.

Why is there suffering? Suffering is due to social constructs that interfere with individual desires, constructs imposed upon the individual ego by a judgmental society seeking to defend its power structures (this is foreshadowing something to come). And if suffering is constructed, then it can be deconstructed. If reality is imposed, then it can be reimagined. Truth is no longer discovered; it is declared.

If you think you’re a they/them, then you are. That’s all it takes. Just think it—and it is so.

There is no objective reality by which to test this. No external world to provide correction. The scientific method—laughable! Biology—repressive! That old wives’ tale that all human babies come from one biological mother and one biological father—how quaint! Gone is the humility of science and the moral law of God; in their place stands the imagination of the self, armed with a self-contradiction and a moralistic platitude. She even asserts that believing in two sexes is fascism!

The Real Moral Test

But here’s where the rubber meets the road.

For all her public moralism about power, justice, and women’s rights, Butler was strangely silent—indeed, complicit—when it really mattered. When the #MeToo movement urged us to “believe victims,” Butler didn’t. In fact, she did the opposite. She wrote a private, behind-the-scenes letter to the president of NYU defending her close friend and fellow gender theorist, who had been accused by a graduate student of sexual abuse and manipulation.

Let that sink in: Butler, long-time critic of power abuse and patriarchal academia, used her own power to shield an alleged abuser from consequences. She didn’t rush to defend the vulnerable. She rushed to protect the powerful—because that powerful person was one of her own.

This is the same Judith Butler who has built a career decrying systems of oppression, who teaches entire generations that moral hierarchies are tools of domination. But when a real moral test arrived, she flunked it. Not because she misunderstood her theory—but because she lived it out.

She later expressed some regret that maybe she may have defended privilege. Weak. But here’s the thing: before you start thinking “hey, we all make mistakes,” you must remember that isn’t the standard she has imposed on others. She demanded works righteousness conformity to her intersectionality power structure activism. There is no grace and no redemption. She can say “whoops” all she wants, but what this exposes is that in old age, after a lifetime of gender activism, she committing heinous wrongs and has seen no personal transformation.

As the fool said to King Lear: you shouldn’t have grown old until you grew wise.

Sadly, there is no such thing as wisdom for Butler because that requires objective reality, and the ego must deny itself to pursue truth. Wisdow laughs at her claim that “all is performance.”

You see, Butler’s gender theory has no room for integrity, no path to repentance, and no standard of justice beyond power itself. The ego is the highest standard. Her entire worldview boils down to this: “Do what you think is true. Reality is what you say it is.”Which works just fine—until she has more power and decides that you are the problem. Then letters are written to defend her friends.

Are you starting to see a theme behind these heroes?

This is what makes her a hero of Pride Month. Not because she offered a path to redemption or renewal. She didn’t. But because she gave the movement a philosophical excuse (albeit a nonsensical one) to cast off all restraint—gender, biology, objectivity, morality—and replace them with the ego and its desires.

What’s the pattern in what these heroes taught and how they live?

  • “Whatever you desire, do that.”
  • “There is no objective moral standard; all is reducible to power.”
  • “And even if there is objective morality, I’ll violate it when it’s personally convenient.”
  • You can be as God, do what you want is the whole of the law.

 

This is an incoherent philosophy on which to build a life. And yet, in our sin, it is the philosophy we all start with. Judith Butler and the LGBTQ+ movement are no different than the rest of us on this point: we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. And it is also true that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. If any of us is to find redemption, fulfillment, and true authenticity, it is in Christ alone.

This is why Butler matters to the LGBTQ+ movement. She gave it its defining creed: “You are whatever you think you are.” It’s a childish idea dressed up in the language of liberation. But it leads not to freedom, only to hypocrisy from which she cannot escape even in old age—and not to justice, only to self-justification.

She is, in short, the perfect hero for a movement that celebrates “authenticity is however you feel now” without accountability, and identity without objective reality.  Pray with me that those who are caught up in captivity to this philosophy see their need for Christ and turn to him.

You can find the other posts in my Pride Month Heroes series on my Substack, which is drowenanderson.substack.com.

Recommendations: 

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)

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

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

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

A Wolf in Women’s Clothing: The One Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Matthew 7:15 (ESV)

 

The bathroom debate has resurrected some very old questions about women’s rights.[1] Once upon a time, women fought for separate bathrooms from men. The reasons were obvious. Privacy, modesty, prudence, and the unfortunate fact that men have a worse record for physical and sexual violence. It’s not in women’s best interests to get stuck in a bathroom with a strange man, if she can help it. But in recent years, the common-sense solution of “separate bathrooms” has come under fire. The Trump administration has introduced a new level of pushback, but the bathroom debate is still far from settled. I have to wonder, however, if we could let the air out of this inflated debate by asking one simple question.

The Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

If we ask the right question, we can show that trans-activists aren’t very serious in proposing trans-inclusive bathrooms. Of course, trans-activists probably think they’re serious. We don’t have to question their intentions here either. Good intentions can’t redeem bad policy anyway. So, for the sake of argument, we can grant good intentions – compassion for marginalized people, commitment to justice, loving your neighbor, human rights, etc. But when activists push for trans-inclusive bathrooms they have to answer this important question. Otherwise, they haven’t really thought through the issue. So  they aren’t very serious. That question is simply this:

How do you police against the predators?

When I say “predators” I’m not talking about all LGBTQ folks or “trans-women” generally. I’m talking about would-be sex criminals: the voyeurs, rapists, pedophiles, criminal opportunists, and even “autogynephilic” men (males who derive sexual arousal from imagining themselves as women). Predators really exist. We can expect some predators to trespass into women’s restrooms as long as naïve policy allows them to. Predators are liable to spawn as long as the systems in place give mischievous males unfettered access to potential victims. In this way, predators are a reliable “test case” for progressive bathroom policies.

Trans vs. Trans-Acting?

We cannot rationally assume that every man who would use a women’s bathroom is a “trans-woman” (biological male who ‘identifies’ as female). Sure, he might be a classic transgender case who poses no real threat to women. But, he could instead be a cross-dresser who likes to sneak a peek at the ladies. He could be a flasher or a sexual harasser he gets a kick out of exposing himself or behaving rudely with women in the restroom. He could be a pedophile, taking mental pics of naked girls, to fantasize about them later. Or he could be a rapist who’d gladly wear a dress if it means open access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Or he could be a clinically sick teen boy using performative gender to corner his “girl crush”, alone, so  she can’t reject him if she tried. History, criminal psychology, and a healthy dose of realism, attest that these are all live possibilities as long as biological males are legally allowed in women’s restrooms.

Maintaining separate bathrooms has, traditionally, been the common-sense solution for reducing those threats. No solution is 100% perfect here. But, realistically, keeping biological males out of women’s restrooms and locker rooms is a good start for policing against perverts and predators. Dropping that wall of separation means reducing our practical ability to protect women from predators. Bear in mind, we still have active laws against flashers, sexual harassers, and peeping toms. But, if it’s legal to do all of that now, as long as you “trans-act”, then our bathroom policies have given perverts and predators an escape clause in our legal code.

Sheep, Goats and Wolves

It would be nice if every “trans-woman” was just an innocent, lost sheep. Maybe they just need a little care, understanding, and a little guidance, to bring them into the fold. Then God could redeem their own unique gender-expression and sexual identity however He sees fit. Perhaps if the church did a better job caring for “widows and orphans,” i.e., fatherlessness, we wouldn’t have as much transgenderism going around (James 1:27; Exod. 22:22; 1 Tim. 5:5). Undoubtedly, there are some lost sheep out there that fit this profile.

The debate over trans-inclusive bathrooms would be a lot simpler if we were only dealing with the proverbial lost sheep. But, realistically, our policies must also account for goats (fakes and frauds). And we especially need to watch out for the wolves (predators and criminal opportunists). We cannot reasonably assume every “trans-woman” is a “lost sheep.” Instead, we have every reason to expect some of them to be wolves in women’s clothing.

The next time someone offers a policy proposal where trans-women can use the women’s restroom, you can ask them how that policy will police against predators? It’s a fair question. We used to police against them by, first, separating bathrooms according to sex. But, if biological males are now allowed into women’s restrooms, how do we expect to replace that policing power now that the perimeter defenses are down?

Remember the Wisdom of Separate Bathrooms

The ugly answer seems to be that trans-inclusive bathroom policy was never intended for women’s safety, but rather for men’s convenience. Males who identify as female are the target audience here, even if biological women are left in the lurch because of it. When inclusive-bathroom policies unwittingly carry a pack of savvy predators, as stow-aways, then as soon as they’re dropped on women’s restrooms, that’s like airdropping a pack of wolves into the sheep pen. Women deserve better. Moreover, it doesn’t do trans-activists any favors when their own policy is readily hijacked by criminals and predators. We do well to preserve separate bathrooms.

References: 

[1] A “quick fix” solution here is to make only “single-stall” bathrooms. That option can work in some cases, but it’s often impractical for stadiums, locker rooms, health clubs, large businesses, and so forth. The bathroom debate isn’t that easily solved.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

 

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

The Widening of God’s Mercy – Book Review

, ,

In the mid-1990’s a Theology professor at Duke Divinity School, named Richard Hayes, wrote a book called The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. It made waves in the Evangelical world because it was the first time a relatively liberal theological scholar took a definitive stance on the biblical sexual ethic. For decades conservative Christian scholars and pastors have cited Hays’s work in this book as evidence that scripture speaks clearly on issues concerning human sexuality and morality.

There were other, more conservative, names that had come to the same conclusions as Hays prior to and after his book was published. However, the very fact that someone of his pedigree, hailing from such a scholarly institution as Duke University, so unequivocally stood on the orthodox understanding of scriptures concerning sexuality was seen as a sort of ace in the hole against the arguments of affirmation theology.

In his 1996 book Hays said this:

“Thus, in view of the considerable uncertainty surrounding the scientific and experiential evidence, in view of our culture’s present swirling confusion about gender roles, in view of our propensity for self-deception, I think it prudent and necessary to let the univocal testimony of Scripture and the Christian tradition order the life of the church on this painfully controversial matter. We must affirm that the New Testament tells us the truth about ourselves as sinners and as God’s sexual creatures: marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose.” (The Moral Vision, pgs. 399-400)

But Wait, There’s More

Recently, however, Richard and his son Christopher, a professor at Fuller Seminary, published a book called The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the biblical story. In it, Richard and Christopher lay out an argument for repudiating Richard’s previous work and leaning into affirmation theology. This seismic shift was heralded as a possible inflection point in the Evangelical Church’s defense of the biblical sexual ethic.

The book’s premise relies on understanding that God changes his mind throughout the history of scripture:

“Although these stories (OT stories, particularly Moses) are told as if God is ‘learning on the job,’ the portrait they create is consistent with a recurring image of God throughout the Bible. Even where judgment seems to narrow the scope of blessing, there are signs of the wideness of God’s mercy. God’s plan for the world is broader than some think.” (pg. 48)

God’s changing of mind and widening of his circle of inclusion is used throughout the book to support the claim that the next step in this widening work is through the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people and their lifestyles:

“Those who do not conform to traditional expectations for sexual orientation should be the next to be explicitly included, as an extension of this ancient and traditional process.” (pg. 4)

In this book review, I will look at what it seems Richard and Cristopher intended to accomplish, the arguments in the book, and, as always, what the book does well and what it does poorly.

Purpose of the Book

Some might believe that the purpose of this book is to change conservative minds, but this is not the case. Richard and his son seek not to change staunch conservatives but to give hope to those in the middle or to the left on the issue of sexual identity and Christianity. The book is also meant to serve as a salve on the wounds of those who have felt alienated by the church’s traditional position on human sexuality. Thus, this is not an academic book, unlike Richard’s first work in 1996, but is, instead, a book focused on empathy, shifting the narrative in the conversation, and extending an olive branch to people either firmly in the affirmation camp or those that are on the fence.

At the outset, Richard and Christopher do not hide the ball as far as that is concerned:

“The reader will find few footnotes” (pg. 4).

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“… after I suggested we write this book, he asked me, “who is the intended audience?” And I said, “Maddie.” That’s my daughter, whom we have raised to appreciate the strength that comes from diversity and who can see very clearly that the future will have no patience with debates over human rights for those whose sexual orientation does not conform to ‘traditional’ standards” (pg. 16).

Clearly, this book is not intended to convince me. And it did not, as that was not its aim.

What this book does well

Care for the LGBTQ+ Community to Come to Jesus

The book strikes a tone of love and care for people in the LGBTQ+ community. It shows a care for their eternal souls and is seemingly meant to serve as an apologetic for them to come to faith in Jesus Christ even if they have been hurt by the theology and/or actions of the Church in the past.

“…but the book is also for those who are already convinced that LGBTQ people are just as good as straight people but who are unsure about God and Christianity… To them -perhaps to you- we say: You’re not crazy to think you and yours are created equal and loved equally by God” (pg. 16).

I appreciate the heart of two individuals who desire to see all come to faith in Jesus Christ and seek to remove any unnecessary obstacles from their path. The question becomes though, what is necessary and unnecessary for the gospel? I have often said that homosexuality and LGBTQ lifestyles are the one sin the church has often told people they need to solve prior to coming to the cross of Christ. This is wrong and harmful. In that much, I agree, but going the extra step to affirm certain lifestyles because otherwise it would cost too much for people to follow Jesus, that is a bridge too far.

Jesus himself said we need to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33), so it is not readily apparent that the obstacles of a biblical sexual ethic should be glossed over. That being said, I believe Christopher and Richard’s heart for people not of the faith is on full display throughout the book. They have clearly been impacted by the stories of pain told to them by people in those communities and I resonate with that.

“A gay acquaintance tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade-schooler, and his Sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it and the words, ‘God don’t make no junk.’ Most of the sheets probably wound up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally, when we needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation; nor do they forget when it doesn’t” (pg. 36).

“My own experience of participating in a church where gay and lesbian members were a vital part of the congregation’s life and ministry has caused me to stop and reconsider what I wrote before” (pg. 10).

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, “Who are we that we can block God” (pg. 213-14).

These personal experiences (Christopher shares, at length, multiple experiences of students at Fuller early in the book) seem to be the impetus for such a change of mind. Experience is of seminal importance throughout the book, and reading scripture through the lens of experience seems to be the preferred method. The desire is admirable, the empathy understandable, but the theology and methodology is flawed.

Unity of the Church

Another thing that seems to bother both Christopher and Richard is the division over this issue. In multiple spaces throughout the book, both authors indicate a desire to move beyond these debates and to the more important matters of the law of Christ. They see the fracturing within the church, rightly, as a bad thing. The divisiveness over such issues seems paltry and unnecessary to them.

Ultimately, it seems one of the goals of their book is to encourage people to let go of division and arguments so we can move forward much like the early church did with food sacrificed to idols.

“The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring” (pg. 2).

They find exegetical arguments counterproductive to the unity of the church on these issues and thus, they do not make many, if any, throughout the book:

“We believe that this debate should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disapprove of same-sex relations. (The regularly cited texts are Gen 19:1-9, Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Rom 1:18-32). In this book we have not revisited them. It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today. But drawing conclusions based only on these passages would be like basing a biblical theology of slavery on Exod. 21:2 (which assumes one can buy a slave) and 1 Pet 2:18 (which tells slaves to be subject to their masters), or a theology of immigration on Ezek 44:9’s exclusion of foreigners from the sanctuary” (pg. 206-207).

“As a practical matter, it is difficult to see how strong differences over same-sex marriages could be maintained within an individual congregation, or even in some cases within an individual denomination. But it is not impossible to imagine that different Christian congregations might hold different norms and practices on this question while still acknowledging one another as members of the one body of Christ – just as Catholic and Protestant churches already do with respect to their different standards on clerical celibacy and women’s ordination” (pg. 216).

While there are certainly issues with these assertions, and certainly I do not agree that exegetical arguments concerning what is and is not a sin are pedantic in any way, I can appreciate the heart for unity behind the words. But unity in sin should not be the goal. This leads us to what this book does poorly.

What this Book does poorly

The entire argument is incredibly flawed

The most glaring issue with this book is that the argument is blatantly flawed. In fact, in arguing for the widening of God’s mercy to be extended to a certain group both Hays men fail in properly defining the word mercy and why mercy is needed in the first place. Not only that, but both men indicate that the passages of scripture outlawing such sexual activity do, in fact, say and mean what Richard claimed they did in 1996.

At one point Richard Hays quotes long passages from his previous work and then concludes said section with this statement:

“As a judgment about what these very few biblical texts say, that statement still seems to me to be correct” (pg. 8).

So, it is not that the interpretation of said scriptures are incorrect, but that God has simply changed his mind and widened his mercy beyond these passages. In other words, because of God’s ever-expanding mercy these passages no longer carry moral weight for how we view sexuality.

How do we know this to be true? Well, basically, because it seems to be true according to Richard and Christopher Hays and that if it isn’t true then our position is “harming” people:

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“Any religious tradition that makes its peace with harming people is to be feared” (pg. 5).

These statements of seeming theological fact are devoid of scripture and devoid of clarification. For instance, who is to say that fighting the battle against sexual sin is a battle that God doesn’t call us to fight either personally or societally?

If the passages themselves retain their meaning (as Richard seems to believe) then it would be paramount to explain how 1 Corinthians 6:18 or 2 Timothy 2:22 mesh with this perspective as well as Ephesians 5:1-13. It certainly seems, from these and other scriptures, that the declaration that Christians ought not fight battles against sexual immorality of this kind is not based in proper hermeneutics.

Adding to that is the question of harm. What does it mean for a religious tradition to “harm people?” How has conservatism done so? Could it not also be the case that affirmation into sin could harm people even if said affirmation feels good and freeing to them in the moment? These are questions that Richard and Christopher never ask.

As for proper exegesis of specific texts, it seems that both Hays see these academic exercises as unnecessary. There is a “deeper logic” of the biblical story in their minds, but this logic is based on nothing other than experience and emotion as far as I can tell and makes leaps based on how one perceives certain threads of scripture and God’s changing of mind through the Old and New Testaments.

“Exegetical debates can become red herrings and distract us from the character of God” (pg. 12).

This is a particularly troubling quote as it assumes that one can adequately understand the character of God without proper exegesis. How do we KNOW God’s character at all without debating the proper exegesis of certain passages? It would seem we can import our idea of what God SHOULD be like, but we may never arrive at who he truly is without it.

For an answer to how God moves in history according to the Hays men a quote from the middle of the book will help the reader:

“Paradoxically, such conservatism proceeds as if God were dead, or were at least done with the world. If God were done with us, then we could simply add up the sum of the texts and arrive at the right answer, once and for all. (This, I’m afraid, is not too far from what Moral Vision did in regard to homosexuality, although it seems to me that my father was always uneasy about the answers” (pg. 92).

Many assumptions are made in this text. One, that conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. To understand what they mean by this, one has to grasp their argument that God changes and widens his scope of acceptance throughout history.

“The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny” (pg. 86).

I may agree this seems to be a problem if one embraces [classical theism], but it is not a problem if one embraces middle knowledge or even open theism.[1] Whether the Hays duo are Open Theists I do not know (though much of their argumentation hints that this may be the case). I believe a robust understanding of God’s middle knowledge makes sense of the passages alluding to God’s changing of mind. Also, even if one is a theological determinist there are certain exegetical tools at one’s disposal to explain how an unchanging God might seem to “change his mind.”

Of course, it is ridiculous to say conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Conservatism proceeds as if God were actively conforming us and others to his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12).

There are many literary devices one might use to explain God’s interaction with humanity over time. For instance, when Jonah finally agrees to preach to Ninevah and the people repent God relents of his promised destruction. The question: did God really change his mind; it seems as if he did.

But the lesson of Jonah is that God is perfectly consistent. He will relent from deserving punishment if repentance occurs regardless of who the people are and how we feel about them (Jonah 4:2). God WOULD have destroyed Ninevah had they not repented but he relented because they repented. Since God knows all things then he knew they would repent but for them to repent they must hear of God’s impending judgement, thus, God sends Jonah. Does this point to fickleness on God’s part or a change of heart or character? No, exactly the opposite. God knows how we will respond based on his foreknowledge of our decisions and he knows how he would have responded if we had done otherwise.

But no such robust discussion on God’s character occurs in this book. The underlying assumption of the book is that human sexuality is as innate as race and thus “sexual minorities” are just as relevant to the expanding of God’s inclusion as the inclusion of Samaritans and gentiles:

[Block quote] “A reader working through the whole book of Isaiah has heard earlier that ‘[The LORD] will assemble the outcasts of Israel’ (11:12). Now, God is going to gather more – not just the outcasts of Israel, but other nations as well. God is going to enlarge the tent. Those who were once forcibly excluded from it are now meant to be ushered in” (pg.105).

“It bears repeating: Scripture reflects that God’s grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change his mind and his approaches to the world to broaden it further. So, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same” (pg. 108).

“A constant theme of these stories is that Jesus does not reject Israel’s scriptures; instead, like the prophets before him, he insists on reinterpreting them in light of the conviction that love and mercy lie at the root of God’s purposes . . . Here we should pause to reflect: Should this contrast of perspectives inform the church’s present conflicts over sexuality?” (pg. 151).

The theological gymnastics employed to reach these conclusions throughout the book are phenomenal. At one point they state that human sexuality has become a Romans 14 issue:

“The ‘strong’ ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to ‘despise’ the ‘weak,’ narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the ‘weak’ ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to ‘pass judgment’ on the sinful laxity of the ‘strong’ who condone same-sex unions” (pg. 200).

What is their basis for this? Well, it is their reading of the “stories of scripture” through the lens of emotional harm rather than fleshly and spiritual harm.

Logical Leaps in Correlation

“The stories we’ve summarized in the foregoing chapters disclose a deeper logic, a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings – even when those prohibitions were explicitly attributed to God in earlier biblical texts” (pg. 207).

One of the most damaging aspects of the book are logical leaps made without argument. The Hays duo consistently make claims of harm without defining what it means to harm someone with theology and how affirming uncomfortable or upsetting truth could be harmful even if upsetting.

“To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.’ Full stop” (pg. 207).

But this trajectory of mercy does not include affirmation of sinful behaviors in any sense. There is no acceptance of the worship of idols, there is no acceptance of fornication, of theft, of bearing false witness or greed. In fact, where mercy is extended in scripture, by Jesus or otherwise, with it comes an expectation of life change and repentance. From the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) there is not a single example of God’s mercy widening so far as to include explicitly listed sins against God such as sexual immorality, something that Richard Hays even indicates is still considered sin if one simply reads scripture for what it says:

“It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (pg. 206).

The idea that Christians overcame slavery despite its supposed affirmation in scripture is leaned on as proof in the book as well:

“We could fill a whole book with discussion of such examples, but the general point is clear: Christians across time have found the Spirit-led freedom to set aside biblical laws and teachings they deem unjust, irrelevant, or inconsistent with the broader divine will. It is not hard to see how the prohibition of same-sex relations could fall into the same category” (pg. 212-213).

But even if that were the case, this is not a story of the broadening of mercy but of the restricting of behavior based on a better understanding of God’s ultimately revealed character in the scriptures and the Imago Dei held by each human through exegesis. Time and again the same leaps in reasoning are used to justify the newly held position.

God opening up worship to Eunuchs – embracing “sexual minorities”

God including gentiles in the promise – embracing “sexual minorities”

God embracing Samaritans in the covenantal promise of Christ – embracing “sexual minorities”

On this last example they do not go into detail on John 4 when Jesus does open up the plan of inclusion to Samaria but at the same time tells the woman at the well that the Samaritans are wrong, that she is in sin, and that future worshipers will worship in spirit and TRUTH.

[Block quote] “There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances” (pg 214).

But the issue with the above quote is that being a foreigner and eunuch is not inherently sinful and that God does not embrace “tax collectors and sinners” without changing them. Zacchaeus changes his lifestyle (Luke 19), so does the woman caught in adultery. The embrace of mercy is not without the expectation of shedding the shackles of sin even if it is a sin that we hold closely within our own constructed identity. It seems the Hays men confuse conversion with sanctification.

Unnecessary Political digs at conservatives throughout

A more minor issue with the book is the random and sudden inclusion of progressive political stances strewn throughout. Gun control, immigration and other politically conservative positions receive unnecessary blows as the arguments are made:

“These deaths, he says (Garry Wills) are an ‘offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily.’ Most people are capable of understanding the statistics about gun deaths, and the many things we could do to reduce them, but alas, they are sure that the Second Amendment means free access to all sorts of firearms. When we grit our teeth in the face of the death of children, we sacrifice them to false gods” (pg. 67).

Perhaps the above quote might be correct even if I disagree, but it is either tone-deaf, disingenuous, or both to include something about Moloch and guns without touching on abortion even once. This would be enough to make one think that perhaps this is simply an ideological work rather than a theological one. This is just one example.

There is no limiting principle

The final issue I want to highlight with this book is that even if the argument worked for same-sex relationships it does not seem that Richard and Christopher are content to stop there. They seem to employ a sort of Motte and Bailey technique of argumentation as they argue for same-sex unions specifically on occasions but then incorporate the entire gambit of sexual ideology (LGBTQ) throughout the book as well.

“Does Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council offer a model for how the church today might address controversial issues concerning inclusion of sexual minorities?… If the church today looks to the council as a pattern – and if it decides that same-sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified as ‘porneia’ – we would need to ask what analogous transformative guidance the church would offer to its members of differing sexual orientations. . .  One reasonable suggestion is that same-sex relationships should aspire to the same standard of monogamous covenant fidelity that the church has long commended and prescribed for heterosexual marriage. And, at the same time, the church should be no less careful to uphold the same standard consistently for its members of heterosexual orientation” (pgs. 186-87).

To argue simply for same-sex inclusion might be one thing (though, I still believe their argument fails). But it seems they have their sights set not simply on this but on the entire progressive sexuality gambit. The constant use of terms like sexual minorities and LGBTQ leaves no guard rails to sexual behavior. Would pedophilia be off limits? Bestiality? Incest? One is left to wonder. Exactly how far does God’s mercy widen in this arena?

“As for the rest of us, when it comes to respecting other people, it’s not plausible to hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and still present ourselves as their friend, or their ‘brother (or sister) in Christ.’ Most people are not interested in that kind of grudging acceptance” (pg. 11, emphasis mine).

Would Richard and Christopher Hays really say it is never plausible to do this? If that is the case, then I suppose we must be open to polyamory, pedophilia and more? After all, who are we to “hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and present ourselves as their friend?” There is no limiting principle offered throughout the book. Only, the continuous and seemingly never-ending widening of God’s mercy in acceptance of previously outlined sin so long as the sin can be seen as an identity marker for a minority group.

“We believe that welcoming people of different sexualities is an act of faithfulness to God’s merciful purposes. Let’s not make God’s offer of grace a lie” (pg. 220-21, emphasis mine).

Conservative Christians would agree with the above statement, but Hays and Hays intimate that welcoming equals affirming. Of course, God’s grace is not a lie. Of course, it extends to all people regardless of their sexual past or their proclivities, but it does not follow then that these sexual sins are not sins and it does not follow that they are worthy of full acceptance and affirmation. Finally, what exactly is meant by “different sexualities”? This is not simply a call for including homosexual “marriage” but opens the door to a wide variety of sexual aberrations. Where does it end?

Conclusion

As the authors say:

“This book is therefore not just an argument about the meaning of the Bible in the past, but an invitation to readers to make new meaning in the present by listening to the Spirit and joining God now in saying, ‘I will gather others to them/besides those already gathered’ (Isa 56:8)” (pg. 221).

Clearly, this book is not about what the Bible means but simply what Christopher and Richard Hays believe God’s character SHOULD be based on their own experiences and feelings:

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, ‘Who are we that we can block God’ (pg. 213-14).

Because they have been influenced by people whom they love, who live sexually impure lifestyles, they seem to embrace the conclusion they desire and read the scripture through that. There is a reason exegesis is ignored in this book because, to come to the conclusion they desired, they could not practice it. Instead, they practice eisegetical approaches to narratives throughout scripture.

This book fails in academics, fails in rhetoric, and fails in discipleship. It is a net negative for the church and while the arguments should be understood, the book as a whole should be rejected as it is unreasonable, unbiblical, and illogical. I give this book a 4 out of 10.

References: 

[1] Editor’s Note: The author said, “theological determinism” here. But, the deeper more robust contrast here is with Classical Theism as that (traditionally understood) contrasts with both (1) Molinism and middle knowledge as well as (2) Open Theism. Classical theists can vary in how they relate to the doctrine of “theological determinism,” though they all agree that God foreordains everything in some sense, even if they can disagree about whether that is “compatible” with human free will.

Recommended Resources: 

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

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

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3YTS3zM

/by

Ten Philosophical Challenges Christian Students Face at Secular University

The Christian student who attends a secular university will encounter very recognizable challenges to his/her Christian faith. As a professor who has taught in a secular university for 24 years, attended faculty meetings where professors discuss how to deconstruct the faith of Christian students, and seen firsthand the animosity administrators have toward Christianity, I am giving you an inside look at the workings of the secular university.

Did God Really Say . . . ?

I have outlined these ten challenges to illustrate the original temptation in order to show that they follow a similar strategy and that little has changed. “Did God really say? . . . You will not surely die” (Gen. 3:1). God knows the day you eat you will be as God knowing good and evil. The Tempter states a conclusion: you will not surely die (Gen. 3:5). This directly contradicts what God said.

Next, the Tempter gives an argument to support the conclusion. His argument besmirches the character of God (God knows you will be like him) and says you will not die because you will be like God. The specific way you will be like God is by knowing good and evil. God knows good and evil as the creator: he determines what is good for a human by creating them with a specific nature. Humans can never know good and evil that way. But, in order to believe God lied, they must put themselves in the place of God. This act of autonomy[1] makes them their own gods.

This same strategy is at work in each of these Ten Challenges that the Christian student will face at the secular university. They question what God said, besmirch God’s character, and teach the student to be autonomous.

The Enemy’s Strategy: Question what God said, insult God’s character, and teach the student to be a law to themselves.

In my CrossExamined podcast Frank and I discuss these steps. You will hear that we keep returning to the law of non-contradiction and self-referential absurdity. Sin is a contradiction. It doesn’t make any sense. How can the intellectuals of our age miss this?

An education should make you wise by teaching you to fear the Lord and shun evil.

Instead, current university education teaches students that sin has no consequences because they can determine what is good and evil. It presents self-contradictory philosophies as if they will bring us happiness and meaning. It tells us to go out and change the world with this nonsense.

It is a new dark age of the mind in which the secular intellectual’s only conceptual framework is “power” and they spend their time praising the basest and most perverted human behaviors. It perfectly follows the decline into debauchery outlined by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1.

Ten Challenges For Christians Going to Secular University

Number 10: Academic Skepticism.

Knowledge about the “big questions” is not possible. There are only different opinions. Each opinion is equal to every other. The biggest mistake is to think your opinion counts as knowledge, which is what Christianity does. With this comes Fideism, the teaching that faith just means “blind belief.” This is a denial that God is clearly revealed in all his works of creation and providence.

Number 9: Religious and worldview pluralism.

All religions are equal. The only problem is when one religion claims to be the only way. Comparative religion says that each religion was invented to preserve power. This can be deceptive in that it seems pro-religion, but it is only pro-religion to be anti-Christian. The student is taught to be tolerant of everything except not to tolerate exclusive truth claims. This is a denial that the only way to be restored to God is through the vicarious atonement of Christ.

Number 8: Scientism.

If knowledge is possible, it is due to naturalism that claims only material causes can explain the world. The creation does not reveal the creator. Humans are mere animals, advanced, but only animals. This is also coupled with climate change claims about the need for a centralized state to take away technology that pollutes. The student is told that the end of the world is near unless human civilization is stopped. Humans are viewed as evil and a cancer on the world. This is simple atheism. It is a denial of God the Creator, who sovereignly rules over the material world and created man in his own image to have dominion.

Number 7: Pragmatism.

What works is what is true. This is the same as saying, “What satisfies is what is true.” Universities often encourage their students to get involved in community outreach, which is reduced to having a pragmatic benefits for their community. “What satisfies” is a statement about what that person views as “good.” Pragmatism denies any “highest good.” It makes education about (1) being a contributor and not about (2) learning to fear God and develop in wisdom and godliness. This is a denial that the purpose of education is to increase our godliness.

Number 6: Higher Criticism.

The Bible was composed merely by men, re-edited through the centuries, with the purpose of preserving power and the patriarchy. This undermines the idea of sola scriptura by taking away the Bible. There is no “historical Jesus.” There are Gnostic Gospels that were kept out for political purposes. This is a denial that we need redemptive revelation and a denial of God’s work to preserve the Bible he inspired.

Number 5: Existentialism.

There is no essence or human nature. There are no universals. There is only personal experience. Each person makes their own meaning. This is used to promote infinite genders and “finding your own identity.” The world, in itself, is without meaning, and meaning is whatever we say it is. This is a denial that the world is full of meaning because it reveals God.

Number 4: Cultural Relativism.

Foucault has been cited 1.4 million times, 70% more than any other author in history.[2] He teaches that crime and insanity are culturally determined by the powerful to keep power. Students are told they only think the way they do because of how they were raised. This is used to promote political agendas like “Limits on immigration are immoral!” This is a denial that there is a moral law that applies to all humans at all times.

Number 3: Marxism of various kinds.

According to Marxism, all of history is a conflict between the oppressors and the oppressed. At first, the target is white men, but soon, you realize that the real enemy is Christianity. The last 500 years have been Christian oppression of women, slaves, the colonized, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and the list goes on. This view teaches envy as a virtue and uses the problem of evil to discredit Christians. This is a denial of the providential rule of God. This one relies on the problem of evil. All evil is due to private property and can be overcome by a centralized state that redistributes wealth.

Number 2: LGBTQ+.

The homosexual movement uses Freudian tactics to convert the student to believe that there are infinite genders, that gender is whatever you say it is, that God did not create humans as male and female, and that marriage is not between a man and a woman. The story is that the young person had to repress their sexual desires, which led to neurosis, anxiety, and depression, and it was only when they could freely express their sexual desires that they found freedom and self-love. It relies on “conversion” stories and “religious experiences” to imitate Christianity. You find your identity in your basest urges. This is a denial that gender and sex are determined by God the Creator.

Number 1: Activism.

Progress toward perfecting human nature through revolution. Oppressed groups and their allies should rise up and overthrow the systematically racist, unjust system built by Christianity. Professors teach their students that the world they live in was built by white Christian men to perpetuate inequity and that the students have been personally wronged by this system. The students are told that the noblest person is the activist who protests and, when needed, burns down the cities. The student is presented with heroes who did just that. This is a secular version of the Great Commission. It is a denial of the transformative power of the Gospel.

Be Prepared

What can a Christian student do? First, know this list and be prepared. Knowing the enemy’s strategy is half the battle. Second, the next half of the battle, is being able to show why these philosophies are in error. Here are some important ways to do that:

  1. Know Romans 1:18-21. Be able to show it is clear that God exists so that unbelief is without excuse.
  2. Know why the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Ecc 12;13-14).
  3. Know why sin leads to death.
  4. Know why the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
  5. Know the Biblical Worldview of Creation, Fall, and Redemption (Gen 1-3).
  6. Know why vicarious atonement through the death of Christ is necessary for redemption (John 1:29).
  7. Know what the historic Christian church has taught (for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith as a doctrinal statement of the Reformation). Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
  8. Be a member of a local Bible-believing Church.
  9. Be involved in campus ministry.
  10. Have friends and family with whom you can be accountable.

 

Footnotes:

[1] [Editor’s Note: “Autonomy” means “self-law” and refers to being self-governed. In this context, autonomy is also an implicit rejection of God’s law and governance; it is being “self-governed” in contrast to being governed by God and His laws].

[2] [Editors Note: As of 24 September 2024 Google Scholar reports 1,409,360 citations of Michel Foucault. See, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AKqYlxMAAAAJ&hl=en]

Recommended Resources:

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

Love Shamed: 5 BIG Lies LGBTQ+ Uses to Silence Christians | with Dr. Bobby Conway

How can Christians effectively share the good news of the Gospel with the LGBTQ+ community? Or should we just mind our own business? This week, Christian apologist and founding lead pastor of Image Church, Dr. Bobby Conway, sits down with Frank at the 2024 CrossExamined Instructor’s Academy to share the DO’s and DONT’s of evangelizing the LGBTQ+ community along with some of the BIG LIES you’ve been fed over the years that often cause Christians to suppress the truth in the name of “tolerance” or prevent them from building friendships with people who identity as gay or transgender.

Thankfully, you don’t have to be a world-renowned apologist to have fruitful faith conversations, and in this podcast episode, you’ll learn how to do it in a way that feels non-confrotational and natural! During their conversation, Frank and Bobby will answer questions like:

  • What #1 goal should Christians have in mind when dialoguing with LGBTQ+ people?
  • Why is it problematic to place our identity in sexual preferences?
  • What are the flaws in the “I was born this way” argument?
  • In what way is the LGBTQ+ community “evangelizing” the Church?
  • How is the media driving the tension between Christians and the LGBTQ+ community?

This episode is all about helping YOU learn how to break the ice and just make connections with people who don’t share your beliefs. As Bobby shares some incredible stories from daily interactions during his “Starbucks ministry”, you’ll see that evangelism can be smooth and conversations can stay friendly. And don’t miss out—more exclusive CIA podcast episodes with our favorite Christian apologists are on the way!

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.

Travel with Frank to Egypt and Mount Sinai: LivingPassages.com
Bobby’s website: ChristianityStillMakesSense.com
Bobby’s YouTube channel: @ChristianityStillMakesSense
Bobby’s church: IMAGE Church

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

The New Cultural Christianity

A few months ago I wrote an article on the West’s move towards a post-Christian culture (Post-Christianity: What’s That?). Since the article’s publication at least two prominent atheists decried the fall of Christianity in the West. One claims to have converted to Christianity (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and the other maintains atheism but embraces “cultural Christianity” (Richard Dawkins).[1] They, along with fellow atheists Bret Weinstein and Tom Holland recognize that the fall of the West will be accomplished with the dismantling of the Church. The New Atheists of twenty years ago assumed that logic, reason, and science would provide the basis for a moral society as it abandoned God and moved into the post-Christian era.

Much to their chagrin, however, this has not been the case. Dawkins began to recognize the threat radical Islam is to the West years ago. He knew that the vacuum of religiosity could clear the way for something much worse. Nature abhors a vacuum and Dawkins rightfully understood that while his desire to see religion dissipate seemed noble, the results could be catastrophic. I always found it interesting that he pursued the eradication of faith anyway.

But this is not a new realization. Many atheists are simply starting to recognize what Frederick Nietzsche proclaimed over a century ago. Nietzsche, an atheist himself, understood full well the terrible implications of a godless West even if, initially, those like Sam Harris, who once said “I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like ‘Science must destroy religion’” and others might sneer at the idea. But Nietzsche’s words are worth a second, third, and maybe hundredth look as we barrel down the road of post-Christianity because his words seem more prophetic now than when they were first penned.

From Nietszche’s Madman to the Übermensch

Nietzsche recounts the story of the madman that declares the terrible consequences of God’s death:

“Where is God?” he cried, ‘I’ll tell you! We have killed him – you and I! We are all his murderers. But how did we do this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained the earth from its son? Where is it moving now… God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him. How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us?… Finally he threw his lantern on the ground so that it broke into pieces and went out. ‘I come too early, he then said; ‘my time is not yet… The deed is still more remote to them than the remotest stars – and yet they have done it themselves!”[2]

Nietzsche surmised that those in the enlightenment had not understood the consequences of God’s philosophical and scientific “death.” He understood that the absence of God would plunge society into nihilism and futility. While God may not exist, perhaps, his perceived existence was necessary to hold society together.

Nietzsche then proposes a possible solution to the problem. A pursuit of the god within ourselves. He named this pursuit of the ultimate human the Übermensch. The Übermensch (which literally means the “over-man”) has been an oft-misunderstood concept. At times it has been seen as the ideal moral human or even as a superior form of the human “race” as the Nazis seemed to use it, but this would be a misunderstanding of Nietzsche’s goal in developing the concept.

In his mind, if we had successfully killed God, we could either drift to nihilism or pursue an “ultimate man” or “beyond man” as the archetype of what it means to be truly human.

Nietzsche understood something about human nature that many new atheists simply did not. That, at our core, human beings are religious creatures. We desire to pursue something greater than ourselves; we desire to order society by a set of ideals, we desire order and not anarchy to hold our culture together. We will all, in the end, worship something or someone.

This is the missing link between a Christian and a post-Christian culture. Human beings cannot order themselves purely along scientific or materialistic lines. Societies and cultures for millennia have proven this pursuit futile. Even supposed secular states tend to develop a religious culture around their leaders. The Czar, the Dictator, and the Communist leader demand religious-like loyalty. They develop their own sets of dogmas, doctrines, and worship standards whether they would admit it or not and they do so to maintain and establish a common culture. Sure, they claim there is no god above them but that does not stop them from declaring themselves a god unto themselves.

In the end the idea of the ultimate man, the Übermensch, has been adopted a variety of ways throughout history from racial lines to philosophical humanism. Society would look to construct a new ideal through which to order itself, one unshackled from the restraints of archaic Christian morality.

The word culture is derived from the Latin word cultus which means both to till and to worship. And while etymology does not equate to definition it is fascinating to think that we could move into a post-Christian cultus or an atheistic cultus. It would seem to be a contradiction in terms and thus would lead one to wonder if a godless culture is even possible.

Perhaps one is technically possible but I contend that the human tendency towards a common culture based on certain metaphysical beliefs about reality renders the proposition dubious at best.

Every culture eventually orders itself around its highest ideal and whatever the highest ideal is, for all intents and purposes, is God. For any culture to survive it must have guiding principles through which it orders itself and often, these principles will take on a religious undertone. There is inherently a religious structure to how human beings organize themselves.  This is not an argument for God’s existence, rather, it is an observation concerning human history.

All cultures eventually sustain a religious type of structure, or, as Nietzsche observed, they are on the precipice of anarchy, destruction, and nihilism. So, if a culture is going to move beyond its religious foundation, to endure, it must replace said religious foundation with another religious type foundation. In Nietzsche’s mind that was the idea of the Übermensch. The Übermensch was the ultimate good (as opposed to the Maximally Great Being revealed in scripture), but one that catered to, instead of restraining, humanity’s base passions and desires.

“The church combats the passions by cutting them off in every sense: its technique, its ‘cure’ is castration. It never asks: ‘how can a desire be spiritualized, beautified, deified?” – Jack Maden, “Ubermensch Explained.”

In other words, it is through the release of “repression” and the embracing of our passions and the self-mastery thereof that we find our purpose, meaning, and hope without a god. In our current moment I believe we are experiencing a shift from Orthodox Cultural Christianity to Post-Christian Cultural Christianity. A type of Christianity that seeks to spiritualize, beautify, and deify our subjective passions, desires and proclivities. We are not progressing towards atheism as much as we are remaking Christianity through the idea of the Übermensch ideal.

This could seem like a contradiction but let me explain:

The New Cultural Christianity

I believe that our current cultural context seeks to remake cultural Christianity from what it was, particularly an orthodox understanding of God’s character and sin, to an Übermensch Cultural Christianity. One that looks inside the man to find the ideal and encourages the living out of our passions and desires.

This shift has made Progressive Christianity the new cultural Christianity of the West.

What do I mean by that?

First, I want to build my case on two different statistics that seem to contradict each other, and these statistics, I believe, have been interpreted wrongly on the individual level, but they help us to understand our new cultural Christianity in the west and in America in particular.

A recent study by Barna Research Group it was found that 71% of people have a high view of Jesus but only 40% have a high view of Church. When narrowed to “no faith” individuals we find 40% having a high view of Jesus with only 21% having a high view of the Church. However, the starkest contrast is between self-described “Christians” wherein 84% have a high view of Jesus but only 58% have a high view of the local Church.

A lot has been made of these statistics. Most have cast aspersions on the local church for misrepresenting Jesus and engaging in rampant hypocrisy. In many ways I do not disagree completely with some of these statements but there is more going on in this statistic than meets the eye and certainly more than an easy explanation of “church hypocrisy” can offer.

For instance, what does one really mean when he or she says the Church is hypocritical? Depending on the reason this could be either a serious charge or a subjective opinion with no basis in reality. Perhaps the next statistic will shed some light on this.

In a separate study led by Probe Ministries it was found that 60% of self-professing born again Christians between the ages of 18 and 40 believe Jesus isn’t the only way to Heaven. In a similar study orchestrated by Pew Research nearly 40% of Americans believe that atheists can get into heaven and a little over one third believe unbelievers can gain access to heaven. This would place all of these people well outside the realm of historic Christian orthodoxy but many within the realm of progressive Christianity.

Obviously, statistics through surveys only tell us how people answer specific questions and not why they answer the question this way. However, if these two or three statistics are accurate in describing our current religiosity in the United States, I believe that we can reasonably conclude that the reason for the low view of Church is not primarily because it represents Christ poorly but because we understand the person and charge of Jesus differently.

I am fully willing to admit that churches have not represented Christ well in a myriad of ways, but I do not believe this explains the wide discrepancy in the statistics. Given the two statistics together I believe it is much more likely that we have redefined Jesus than that the Church has failed to represent Him well enough.

Are there cases of Christian hypocrisy? Absolutely. However, what is called hypocrisy and what is actual hypocrisy can be two different things. For instance, a Christian that holds to a traditional view of heaven and hell and a traditional view of marriage and sexuality might be (and often is) called a hypocrite because this same Christian believes that God is an omnibenevolent God and full of grace and mercy.

But these are only hypocritical beliefs if we redefine the baseline of what it truly means to be Christian. If we replace the cultural definitions of truth, love, mercy, and Jesus with a new Übermensch type redefinition. I believe this is what we are truly experiencing in our current cultural moment. The new cultural religion is not entirely post-Christian, as in materialistic and atheistic, but it is narcissistic spiritualism coopting cultural Christian values and remaking them into progressive cultural Christianity.

Progressive Christianity has redefined Jesus into the Übermensch and repackaged Christianity in its likeness. I am aware that this is a reductive analysis, clearly more philosophical threads could be pulled to analyze how exactly we got here. For a broader case see Carl Trueman’s work The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (2020).  The point here is to draw a line of thought from the principle elucidated by Nietzsche to our modern moment. This is not to say that the progressive culture is actively adopting the idea of the Übermensch, but rather that the principle introduced by Nietzsche’s recognition of the necessity of God (or something like him) to the success of society is playing itself out through the restructuring of our cultural Christianity.

It is not so much that our culture has moved beyond Christianity but that it has completely redefined it. Jesus, as understood in our current cultural milieu, is a different character altogether. An Übermensch type of character meant to affirm our desires, passions, political systems and aberrant sexuality (for example, here). This cultural Christianity sheds the shackles of historical Christian morality and embraces the subjective nature of the Übermensch. In other words, the vacuum left by the retreat of the orthodox values of the Church has not been replaced by science, reason, or logic but by a new, more palatable form of Christianity (if one can call it Christianity at all). A Christianity that operates smoothly within the fluidity of post-modernism and can adapt with the concepts that can synthesize together seemingly opposing truth claims.

If your desires tell you that to avoid nihilism you must augment your body to conform with your subjective gender identity, then the Übermensch Cultural Christian (we will call them Progressive Christians) will affirm such drastic action. Why? Because this Jesus is a different Jesus and because we have not so much moved beyond a cultural Christianity but have reinvented what it means to be a cultural Christian. This Jesus operates under new definitions of love, truth, morality, holiness and justice.

It is no wonder that progressive Christianity happens to often affirm nearly all the dogmatic moral stances of the current secular cultural values system. This is because progressive Christianity has supplanted orthodox Christianity as the dominant Cultural Christianity. In Progressive Christianity Jesus would not want you to be transformed by the renewing of your mind and away from certain sins but to set yourself free of the sins of certainty, doctrines of hell and the shackles of prudish thought.

Thus, if you express a culturally heterodox position based in classic orthodox Christian theology you will be maligned as hateful, bigoted, or hypocritical. The new cultural Christianity declares you not really a Christian, or at least, a hypocritical one.

The Challenge Before Us

Many have wondered how someone like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi could declare their fealty to the Catholic Church while affirming positions on abortion, marriage, and contraception that would have, in the past, excommunicated them from the Church. The answer lies within this new cultural Christianity. Biden and Pelosi are not Catholics in any meaningful or historical sense of the term, but they are cultural Catholics or current cultural Christians. They have adopted progressively loaded theology for political expedience. They have adopted the new cultural Christianity.

30 Years Ago . . .

It seems to me that progressive Christianity is becoming (if it is not already) the cultural Christianity of the West and of the United States in particular. Thirty years ago, cultural Christians would espouse a similar moral framework to born again Christians. This is why the church could open its doors and receive unbelievers from their communities and preach the gospel from the pulpit and it made sense even to the unbeliever. Not everyone believed or responded with faith, but they understood the argument. They understood it because the culture was built upon it. Obviously, this form of cultural Christianity was not without its warts but now we see a completely different effect.

When unbelievers or unchurched people come and sit in our congregations, they may consider themselves “cultural Christians” but their approach to morality has been shaped and molded by progressive cultural Christianity. The gospel from the pulpit in this moment makes no sense to them. Sin is now oppression and repression not immoral behavior that misses the mark of the holy God. Love is affirmation of the inner-man and a necessity to aid in bending reality around those desires to find true happiness.

Sounds a bit like Neitzsche’s Übermensch.

When these cultural Christians come to our churches, they hear the same words but through a completely different cultural lens. They are cultural Christians, but their sense of Christianity is shaped by progressive theology and humanistic philosophy. It becomes a cross-cultural conversation (See: 3 conversations and how to have them) even among people who would call themselves Christians.

Thirty years ago the mainline denominations followed suit with the cultural Christianity of the day. Mainline denominations have often blown with winds of doctrine shaped by cultural Christianity and given the United Methodist Church’s recent removal of the prohibition on gay clergy it is safe to say that their drifting into the progressive cultural Christianity is nearly complete.

Interestingly, many formerly recognized “new atheists” are seeing this before our Christian leaders. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, James Lindsey and even Richard Dawkins are seeing it, but they haven’t the faintest clue what to do about it. Dawkins decries the rise of Islam in England but struggles to recognize that the rise of Islam is, at least in part, due to this new form of cultural Christianity. A cultural Christianity that affirms multiple paths to the ultimate good will open itself up to the belief systems of Islam and others. A cultural Christianity that views scripture and sin primarily through the lens of intersectionality and oppressed-oppressor narratives will likely embrace any belief system deemed as being “othered” by the West.

Ironically, it is Dawkins’ belief that real Christianity ought to be abandoned while cultural Christianity ought to remain that leads us into this new cultural Christianity that resembles Nietzsche’s remedy for nihilism in the Übermensch.

So yes, I believe we have moved into a post-Christian era, but more than that I believe that post-Christianity has merely become an embrace of a new kind of cultural Christianity, and it is closely aligned with progressive theology. Once we recognize this, the cultural picture suddenly becomes much clearer and perhaps our strategies for engagement and evangelism will follow suit.

References:

[1] Richard Dawkins, Interview with LBC (May 2024), at: https://youtu.be/COHgEFUFWyg

[2] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Bernard Williams, ed., Josephine Naukhoff, trans. (Cambridge & NY: Cambridge, 2001), 119-120.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4d2BgjR

/by

A Compassionate Response to Alistair Begg’s ‘Bad Advice’ on LGBT Weddings

Some time has passed since controversial advice resurfaced from popular preacher Alistair Begg on his radio program, “Truth for Life.” The controversy revolves around Pastor Begg shocking a grandmother with the advice to not only attend her grandson’s transgender wedding but also to buy them a gift.

To reinforce the grandmother attending the trans wedding, pastor Begg prefaced it by saying, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.'”

Days following the backlash Begg and his ministry received, a spokesman for “Truth for Life” published this statement: “Alistair’s advice to the inquirer was that of a grandfather [Mr. Begg] seeking to help a believing grandmother maintain a relationship with her unbelieving [grandchild] and was in no way an endorsement of the unbiblical ceremony.”

Before delving into my thoughts on Alistair Begg’s troubling advice, I want to express my deep appreciation for him. Pastor Begg is undoubtedly one of our era’s most humble and thought-provoking preachers. His profound biblical teachings have significantly nurtured my faith and honed my pastoral skills. My forthcoming comments are solely in response to his controversial remarks. They should not be misconstrued as a critique of his admirable character, his unwavering love for the Bible, or his impactful public ministry.

Against this background, I will present three areas of biblical doctrine that will act as direct confirmation to pastor Begg that his advice is inconsistent with what he believes doctrinally and reveals a compromise that caters to the sexual revolution currently undermining Christian ethics.

Compromise #1: Attending an LGBT wedding overlooks God’s identity of male and female

Before Begg shared his insights, he inquired if the grandmother had made it clear to her grandson that attending a trans wedding does not necessarily mean endorsing LGBT ideology. While this is an important consideration, it still leaves an unresolved issue that Begg overlooks – what exactly is being celebrated at an LGBT wedding?

Answer: A gay couple’s sexuality. A trans person believing they are a different gender than what God gave them at birth.

Let us now compare that with what the Bible says about humanity. From the beginning, God made humans with two biological sexes, male and female. God did not make male and female “according to their own kind” but in the likeness of Himself—making the two fit together in a complementary (suitable) way for each other (Genesis 2:18-20).

Although God made us sexual creatures, our sexuality, however, is not our identity. It is not what defines us. Sexuality merely explains an aspect of our identity. It is not who we are but how we are. Anything that runs contrary to God’s design is dishonorable to Him and is not (in any way) to be excused, ignored, or celebrated.

Just to be clear, Begg wholeheartedly affirms the Bible and never in any of his preaching condones homosexuality or transgenderism. In fact, in 2022, Pastor Begg preached a sermon at Parkside Church from the very contentious Romans 1:26-27 passage, in which he said, “Why would I ever come here and do verses 26 and 27 unless I absolutely believed that the Bible is God’s Word that it is unerring, and it speaks truth, even on a Sunday morning like this in 2022. We’re not at liberty to rewrite the Bible to accommodate godless perspectives on abortion, on euthanasia, on same-sex marriage, on transgenderism, and more. We’re not.”

That is why it is even more troubling to hear Begg advocating for Christians to attend an LGBT wedding.

How is the presence of a Christian attending a wedding an act of love when the couple at the altar is a public display of the sexualized revolution that vehemently opposes God’s creational order?

How does this demonstrate the Christian’s respect for God, others, and their personal beliefs?

Christians are duty-bound to uphold God’s standards for what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman.

Compromise #2: Attending an LGBT wedding undermines God’s definition of marriage between a man and a woman

According to the Word of God, marriage is a sacred union intended to be shared between a man and a woman. It reflects the desire for intimacy that God instilled in men and women. Faithfully being married and sharing in sexual intimacy is considered one of the most rewarding relationships created by God.

For this reason, Begg’s comments are more than a “agree-to-disagree” matter between Christians. Striving to be a practitioner, Begg exaggerated the perception that not attending is a sign of rejection rather than acknowledging the mandate to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:8).

Attending an LGBT wedding or any other ceremony that goes against biblical teachings raises the question of whether we should ignore Jesus’s teachings for the sake of our witness. According to Jesus (see Matthew 19:4-9), divorcing and remarrying without biblical grounds is considered adultery. So, do we apply Begg’s same reasoning to attending such a wedding?

Again, this flawed reasoning contradicts what we read in Scripture. The answer lies in understanding the Bible’s teachings about marriage and human sexuality. Hebrews 13:4 states, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” Here, the writer of Hebrews maintains the sacredness of sexual intimacy within the marriage bond while, at the same time, warning of God’s judgment on those who commit sexual immorality and adultery.

While it is essential to love and show respect to all individuals, any “marriage” that goes against God’s standards is not something Christians should support. Otherwise, they may be perceived to support a union that deviates from God’s divine design and, therefore, be judged for passively allowing people to celebrate their sin.

Compromise #3: Attending an LGBT wedding actually weakens a Christian’s witness

In his final comments about attending an LGBT wedding, Begg concluded, “We’re going to have to take that risk a lot more if we want to build bridges into the hearts and lives of those who don’t understand Jesus and don’t understand that he is a King.”

What exactly does Begg mean when he says Christians are ‘going to have to take that risk a lot more’?

Is Begg suggesting that Christians should attend a “gay” wedding for the gospel’s sake? Yes, I think that is the real motivation behind Begg’s advice. The potential harm this could cause a Christian is far more significant, however, than he implies.

It is false to say that attending an LGBT wedding is a sign of true love and “building bridges.” If anything, the Christian who attends an LGBT wedding is risking their witness before God and man. Not the reverse. This does not mean that Christians should act in judgment or condemnation towards those with different beliefs or lifestyles. It is important, however, to consider how our actions may be perceived by others while remaining true to our convictions.

Let us not sugarcoat it. Your presence as a Christian speaks volumes at an LGBT wedding, but not because the gay-affirming wedding party is blown away by your showing up. Instead, your presence signifies that they have persuaded another Christian to (in some small way) embrace inclusivity despite any pressures or convictions.

Do you remain silent when the Wedding Officiant asks if anyone objects to this marriage? If you do, are you indicating your approval to the couple and everyone in attendance? When the couple kiss and are announced married, do you smile and cheer? When everyone raises a glass to the couple, do you raise yours in solidarity?

In his thoughtful article, “Should Christians Attend Gay Weddings? Does It Matter Whether They’re Religious or Secular?” Randy Alcorn clears things up by writing,

“When you attend a gay person’s birthday party, you’re joining in celebrating their birthday, right? That’s great. When you invite your gay or lesbian friend over for dinner, you’re celebrating friendship and life—no problem. When you toast to good health, great. But when you raise your glass and toast to a wedding that you are convinced dishonors God, or is not a true wedding at all, isn’t that radically different?”

Attending an LGBT wedding can be seen as giving a blessing to the gay or trans couple. This is not a risk any Christian should be willing to take in order to stand as a witness for Christ.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, your ultimate goal is to obey His commandments and fulfill His purpose for your life. The primary commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (Matthew 22:36-40). As a devout Christian, your priority is not primarily focused on making and maintaining friendships. Instead, you are called to dedicate yourself to serving God rather than pleasing others. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul questions whether he seeks approval from man or God. He emphasizes that seeking favor from man alone would make him inadequate as a “servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).

A loving relationship should not be limited to whether you attend a gay wedding. You can show love for your gay or trans friend or family member by respectfully declining to attend their wedding. Let them know how much you love and care for them but that your relationship with Jesus comes first, and you hope they can respect that about you. You can still love your gay or trans friend or family member in other ways. You can support and show love for your LGBT community by communicating openly, being friendly, and valuing their worth as individuals created in God’s image.

Pastor Begg and I may not see eye-to-eye when it comes to attending an LGBT wedding, but despite our disagreement, I pray for him and his ministry. I hope that one day, he will change his heart on this issue. Until then, I will remain hopeful and seek to preserve the unity in the body of Christ.

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book 

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

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

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

 

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

Originally Posted at: https://bit.ly/3Xgh8pB

 

/by

Andy Stanley’s Unbiblical ‘Affirming’ Stance

,

In the following piece, I will discuss the ongoing controversies surrounding Andy Stanley and the recent Unconditional Conference held at North Point Church — outlining clear departures from the scriptural teachings found in the Bible.

I will spotlight three key concerns to illustrate how Andy Stanley promotes an approach and an ideology contradicting New Testament teachings on homosexuality.

Say it Ain’t So!

As followers of Christ, we strive to align our lives with God’s Word, maintaining unwavering faith in times of discord. It is disheartening to see influential Christian figures like Andy Stanley, who command extensive ministry recognition, endorsing views contrary to biblical Christianity.

Even as I profoundly disagree with the path Andy Stanley and his church are taking, I remain hopeful for him to reconsider his wayward stance as a fellow Christian. My intention is not to provoke empty quarrels or breed negativity but to bring clarity and guidance in navigating through these contentious subjects. I endeavor to deal with this sensitive topic with grace and respect, promoting unity among believers (see Romans 12:16-18; 1 Peter 3:8).

The Apostle Paul, however, cautions the body of Christ, that is, the Church, to “avoid those who instigate division and trigger obstacles against the teachings we follow” (Romans 16:17). Thus, we must engage in these tough conversations, pushing ourselves to think critically and delve deeper into scriptural truths about our identity in Christ and what the Bible teaches about sexual sin.

First, An Unbiblical Presumption About LGBTQ+

Taking this warning to heart, let me address my first concern about what Andy Stanley and several of his leaders within North Point espouse. According to Greg and Lynn McDonald — founders of Embracing the Journey, and the couple who put on the Unconditional Conference at North Point — they don’t declare a theological stance on LGBTQ+ matters. That assessment, however, is not entirely accurate. In fact, they hold to a very unbiblical presumption. These proponents (McDonalds, Andy Stanley, Justin Lee, David Gushee) argue that Christians viewing homosexuality as sinful are misinterpreting biblical text, causing profound harm to LGBTQ+ individuals. Behind this presumption is a deviation from Jesus’s clear teachings on human gender (it’s binary) and marriage (it’s a union only between a man and a woman). See Matthew 19:3-6 and Genesis 2:18-25.

Second, Entangling Alliances

The second entanglement is the invitation and alliance afforded by North Point Church to platform activists, such as David Gushee, a progressive Christian who advocates for same-sex “marriage.” In his book, “Changing Our Mind: A Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBT Christians,” Gushee boldly declares an error of perspective by early Christians on the moral dimension of homosexuality. He alludes that salvation calls on all, regardless of sexual identity or orientation. This perspective also resonates in the narratives of “gay-Christian” men like Justin Lee and Brian Nietzel (both in same-sex “marriages”), who have been frequent guest speakers at North Point.

Third, Andy Stanley’s Own Teaching

Third, it’s troubling to conceive the teachings from Andy Stanley himself. Stanley loves to say he and his church, North Point, are all about the gospel and sharing the love of Jesus with those far from God. But what does the gospel actually mean if homosexuality and transgenderism, and same-sex “marriage” are not considered a sin? If we can hijack what Jesus taught and throw out whatever we disagree with–the end product is a different gospel altogether.

In a way, Andy Stanley is modifying God’s love to embrace all walks of life, no matter the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

In his advocacy for LGBT rights within the church, Andy adopts a practice-oriented perspective. He often shares pastoral anecdotes where he counseled families with sons or daughters who identify as LGBTQ+. As Andy stated in his “I Love My Church” sermon at North Point, “Jesus drew big circles in his ministry.” Suggesting that not loving and affirming LGBTQ+ individuals for who they are is not expressing love in the same capacity that Jesus did.

Compassionate Error Is Still Error

No matter how eloquent or compassionate Andy Stanley tries to make it sound, what God calls sin, is still sin (Romans 1:26-27). We have no right or authority to override the commands of God written down in the Bible. John, the apostle, distinctly writes, “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands” (1 John 5:2).

As the church, sanctified, washed, and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:11), we are not to give ourselves over to sinful desires that defile our bodies and bring enmity between us and God. Instead, we are to offer our bodies as members of righteousness. That, my friends, is true love.

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book 

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

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

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

 

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

 

/by

How Censorship Endangers You | with Seth Dillon

How is today’s censorship trend affecting your job, your child’s education, and your medical healthcare of all things? And what about the political right? Are they as guilty of imposing censorship on society as the far left?

For this midweek podcast episode, Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee, returns to speak more about the issue of censorship and how it’s restricting our freedoms in unimaginable and potentially devastating ways. Why are conservatives banning books from school libraries? How is wokism negatively impacting how doctors prescribe medicine? Is the distribution of porn protected under the First Amendment? And why can’t comedians be funny anymore? All of these questions and more will be addressed as Frank and Seth continue this ongoing conversation about the fight for free speech!

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.

Listen to Part 1: Censoring The Babylon Bee? with Seth Dillon

 

Download Transcript

 

/by