Tag Archive for: Progressive Christianity

I Never Expected to Doubt

“Oh Jesus! Jesus!” My spirit sprung to prayer with catlike reflexes as I watched my 2-year-old daughter tumble down the 15-step staircase. I stood helpless as her little body hurled toward the hardwood floor.

She stood up without a scratch . . . but my soul didn’t. In that moment, I was never more aware of the wound that had been festering for months.

The wound was doubt.

Experiencing Doubt

I had been experiencing doubt about God’s existence and the Christianity I had believed to be true my whole life. But until that moment, I didn’t realize how deeply that doubt had wrapped itself around my mind. To the casual observer, my daughter fell, I prayed, and she was okay. But for the first time in my life, I wasn’t so sure it was divine intervention. For the first time I felt foolish . . . for praying.

I felt silly for crying out to God in that desperate moment. It was terrifying to realize the faith that had once been my identity now seemed more like a child’s fairy tale than the explanation of reality.

For me, doubt was an entirely new concept. Growing up, I watched God’s power at work in people’s lives, in my life. I knew God was real. I knew Jesus died for my sins, was resurrected, and was coming again. I knew the Bible was his Word, and I couldn’t be convinced otherwise. I was active in youth group, went on mission trips, and emerged as a trusted leader among my peers. I was the kid who no one would have dreamed would doubt her faith. I was the kid no one worried about, the one who would be just fine.

But now, in my early 30s, I wasn’t fine. I had just spent four months enduring the skepticism and intellectual attack of an agnostic “pastor” who invited me to be a part of a study group at church. A pastor who won my respect and trust had dismantled my faith, one belief at a time.

Doubt Isn’t the Opposite of Faith

By God’s grace and unfathomable mercy to me, my faith was rebuilt. But during my time of doubt, I suffered from an all-too-common misunderstanding about what biblical faith is. I thought doubt and faith were opposites—that if I questioned what I believed, I’d somehow be a failure in God’s eyes. But this definition of faith has more in common with how atheists understand faith than how the Bible defines it. Atheist Richard Dawkins defines religious faith as “blind.” In a debate with John Lennox, he said, “We only need to use the word ‘faith’ when there isn’t any evidence at all.”

But in the Bible, “faith” means trust, not blind belief. We all put our trust in various things every single day. Every time we drive our car across a bridge, we trust it will hold up like it has many times before. We trust, not because we have 100 percent proof, but because we have good evidence to believe the bridge won’t collapse.

Doubt isn’t the opposite of faith. Unbelief is the opposite of faith.

As Tim Keller writes:

A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic. A person’s faith can collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.

According to Keller, the strongest form of faith is one that has wrestled through doubt. The Bible is full of great examples. Here are three doubters Jesus responded to with mercy.

1. The Desperate Father
Mark 9 tells the story of a man desperately trying to find healing for his son who was demon-possessed. This particular demon caused the boy to become mute and would often seize him, throwing him into fire or water to kill him. The man asked Jesus to have pity on him and heal his son. Jesus responded, “All things are possible for one who believes.” Without hesitation, the man cried out, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24).

Help my unbelief. It’s a simple, heartfelt prayer that Jesus readily answered by healing his son. He commanded the demon to come out and restore the boy to health and wholeness.

The man asked for help with his doubt, and Jesus came to his aid.

2. John the Baptist
If there’s any biblical figure who should have no reason to doubt, it’s John the Baptist. This is the man who was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was even born. This is the man who came out of the wilderness proclaiming the coming Messiah. This is the man who baptized the Son of God, witnessed the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, and heard the audible voice of God. Yet at the end of his life, while rotting in Herod’s prison cell, he doubted. “Are you the one who is to come or should we look for another?” (Matt. 11:3).

This is the question he sent his disciples to ask Jesus—and Jesus didn’t scold him for asking. He didn’t reply, “John, you shouldn’t doubt!” or “We don’t ask those types of questions here!” No. Jesus performed miracles in front of John’s disciples and sent them back to testify, even referencing a prophecy about himself that John would understand.

John asked for reassurance, and Jesus was happy to oblige.

3. Thomas
Thomas is often referred to as “Doubting Thomas,” but I don’t think that’s accurate. Thomas was more of a skeptic than a doubter—which is quite reasonable considering the situation. The resurrected Jesus had appeared to the other disciples. When they told Thomas about it, he replied, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (John 20:25).

Like today, resurrections weren’t everyday occurrences in the ancient world. If they were, they wouldn’t be considered miracles. It was perfectly rational and intelligent for Thomas to ask for evidence to back up the claim of his fellow disciples. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he didn’t shame him for his skepticism. Instead, Jesus said, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe” (John 20:27). It was only after offering evidence that Jesus instructed Thomas to believe.

Thomas asked for evidence, and Jesus delivered it.

Doubt toward God

In his book Doubting Toward Faith, Bobby Conway writes that doubt is directional. We can doubt toward God, or we can doubt away from him. If you’re struggling with doubt, I encourage you to doubt toward God. If you can’t think of what to pray, pray like the great men of faith who came before you:

  • Ask for help
  • Ask for reassurance
  • Ask for evidence

God is waiting to help and reassure you. The evidence for his existence and the truth of Christianity is plentiful. We don’t need to be afraid of doubt—the gospel can stand up to skepticism and questioning. Jesus could handle the doubts and questions of the desperate father, John, and Thomas. He can handle yours too.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/40kTb1j

/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

Dear Christian: Please Don’t Unhitch Your Faith From the Old Testament

How should Christians understand the Old Testament? Since the birth of Christianity, this has been a topic of hot debate, and to this day many Christians don’t really understand how their faith in Jesus interacts with what they read in the Old Testament. It can be tempting to ignore it—or throw it out altogether.

Many Christians have no idea how to read the Old Testament and are under the impression they are supposed to obey every command God gave to Israel. While it’s true that we, as Christians, no longer need to sacrifice animals, engage in purity rituals, and stone people for certain sins, God’s moral law revealed in the Old Testament is based on His nature and character, which is unchanging—and still applicable today.

In Acts 15, New Testament church leaders met to decide whether or not Gentile believers needed to be circumcised according to the Law of Moses. The dispute in Acts 15 did not concern the ethical or moral components of the law, rather it was about how circumcision would bring the full weight of the ceremonial law down on the new gentile believers. But rather than being a departure from the entirety of the Old Testament, the guidelines this council applied to the gentiles actually came from the moral components of the Old Testament law. (Lev.7-8)

As early as the 2nd century, a heretic known only as Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament could not be the same as the God of the New and that Jesus came to abolish the Old Testament. This two-god theology caused Marcion to create his own canon of scripture, cutting out the entire Old Testament—something the early church quickly rejected. You might say Marcion was the first to “unhitch” the New from the Old.

It can still be tempting today to diminish or disregard the Old Testament. Here are three reasons why you shouldn’t unhitch your Christianity from the Old Testament:

1. Jesus didn’t unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament.

The Old Testament served as the bedrock upon which Jesus founded his ministry and even his identity—quoting it directly or in general dozens of times. In fact, the Old Testament is cited over 200 times in the Gospels alone.

During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus specifically said he had NOT come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). More importantly, he followed that statement with high praise for the law and for those who teach others to obey it (5:19).

Jesus once told a story about a rich man who lived in luxury and a poor man who lived in suffering (Luke 16:19-31). The rich man died apart from God and went into eternal torment, while the poor man died righteous and went to the “bosom of Abraham.” Distressed that his brothers would receive the same fate, the rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them. Abraham’s response was telling: “They have Moses and the prophets,” suggesting that this man’s relatives might find salvation in the Old Testament. The rich man argued that what they really need to see is Lazarus come back from the dead, but Abraham responded, “If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead.” “Moses and the prophets” is parallel to the phrase “law and prophets” used by Jesus in Matthew, and it was a common idiom for what we now call the Old Testament.

Jesus once rebuked the Pharisees for challenging his authority, and he even made the bold claim that they had never even heard from God (John 5:37). This accusation may seem strange, as the Pharisees were known for their understanding of the Law. But Jesus went on to say, “You study the scriptures thoroughly, because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39).

Yet again, the message from Jesus to those who studied the Old Testament was not that the Old Testament would no longer apply, but that through it his work would be made known. To argue otherwise is to attempt to remove the Messiah from his Jewish context and to import a Christ that is foreign to the New Testament.

2. The Apostles didn’t unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament.

We can get a good idea of how the earliest Christians understood their faith in light of the Old Testament by looking at the very first sermon ever delivered by a Christian. In Acts 2, the apostle Peter centers the entirety of his gospel presentation on the writings of the Old Testament. According to Peter, the coming of Christ is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21), and the words of David (2:25-36) have verified who he is. Rather than telling the crowd the Old Testament has no application to their lives, Peter preached Jesus directly from it.

As Paul witnessed to Jews in synagogues across the Roman Empire, we read that the Bereans were “more notable” than the Thessalonians because “they examined the scriptures daily to see if (what he said) was true” (Acts 17:11). Again, the Scriptures available to them—and the very ones Paul would have used—were the Old Testament.

Paul defended himself to the Roman government by saying all he had done was to preach what “the prophets and Moses said” (Acts 26:22-23). Paul also wrote, “Everything that was written from former times was written for our instruction” (Romans 15:4). The “our” in question is not the Jews, but Christians. In the same epistle, he stated that the gospel itself was foretold in the Old Testament and that the doctrines and teaching were the same (Romans 1:2-3; 16:26).

Paul almost never divorced his preaching and teaching from the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact, shortly before his execution, Paul sent a letter from his Roman prison asking that a few things be brought to him, including “the scrolls” and “the parchments” (2 Timothy 4:13). While the identity of the parchments is debated, it is virtually unanimous that the scrolls in question were Paul’s copies of the Old Testament. A New Testament Christian, awaiting death, desired nothing more strongly than to read his Bible.

3. The earliest Christian creed didn’t unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament.

Creeds were a way for Christians to learn and recite important doctrines and to pass that information on to others. Arguably, the earliest Christian creed is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, dating back to approximately three to seven years after Jesus’ resurrection. This is a perfect example of what the earliest Christians believed:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve….

Notice the primary beliefs in this early Christian creed—that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose from the dead—are inextricably tied to the Old Testament Scriptures.

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. The totality of God’s revealed Word is found in the union of both. It might be tempting for 21st century Christians to conclude that the Old Testament is of no use to us, but this is not the example left to us by the apostles, nor is it the example given to us by the church. To do violence to one Testament necessarily damages the other, because it does violence to the revealed Word of God.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers👉📱https://bit.ly/3Ig6KDc  

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? Mp4👉📱https://bit.ly/3AbN2X1, Mp3👉📱https://bit.ly/3c9lvgV, and DVD👉📱https://bit.ly/3wfyLHx by Frank Turek

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek: INSTRUCTOR Study Guide👉📱 https://cutt.ly/eIyeiKG, STUDENT Study Guide👉📱https://cutt.ly/OIyegwW, and DVD👉📱https://cutt.ly/aIyelh6

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD👉📱 https://cutt.ly/pPdbUzq, Mp3👉📱 https://cutt.ly/nPdbDRv, and Mp4👉📱https://cutt.ly/gPdbCCr)

 

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted 5/14/2018 at: https://bit.ly/4es5Ao5

 

/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

Is Social Justice Hijacking the Gospel?

,

Progressive Christian blogger and author John Pavlovitz wrote,  “We believe that social justice is the heart of the Gospel…” Is he right? And what exactly is social justice?

I recently posted an article in which I described Progressive Christian churches as swapping out the gospel for social justice. I got a lot of pushback on this point, but I believe that most of this pushback comes down to a misunderstanding of words.

Some are quick to say, “Social justice is good!” or “Social justice is bad!” without giving any nuanced thought to what the phrase actually means. Recently, I listened to a Mortification of Spin podcast episode called “Hijacking Social Justice,” that brilliantly dove into the history and meaning of the phrase and how it interacts with the gospel. It inspired this article, and I highly recommend listening to it.

What is Social Justice? 

Justice is a strong and consistent theme throughout Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments. It’s clear that God loves justice, and we ought to care about it too. But what is social justice? American philosopher and novelist Michael Novak wrote:

Social justice is one of the terms most often used in ethical and political discourse. It is also a term used with the least care. I have searched in vain for definitions of it. In its fuzziness and warmth, everyone wants to cuddle it. But virtually no one will give you a forthright definition of it.

A little history….. 

In ancient Greece, Aristotle defined “justice” simply as giving each person his due. In times of crisis, war, and political upheaval, this concept became more complicated. A more general type of justice had to be thought through when it just wasn’t possible to give each individual person their due. Echoing Aristotle, St. Augustine described the task of justice “to see that to each is given what belongs to each.”(1)

​Today, the term is more vague than it was historically and leans toward being associated with more liberal values, rather than justice in general. For example, “social justice” tends to be applied to issues like women’s rights, immigration, and gay rights, while generally not being applied to the millions of babies killed by abortion each year, or the plight of the most persecuted group in the world—Christians.

It would seem that there is an extraordinarily selective use of the term in our current culture. 

Social Justice: a meaningful phrase—or just a cliche? 

“Social Justice” has, in some ways, become a cliche—a catch-all phrase that can mean anything from a call for government action to simply being a good neighbor. Because of this, it’s very difficult to figure out how the term applies to the mission of the Church. In her classic essay, Augustine on Justice, Philosopher Mary T. Clark described St. Augustine’s view like this:

Rightly related to God, man is properly related within himself and to the external world of people and things. 

Augustine believed that it was impossible for people to be “just” in their relation with each other unless their relationship with God was first rightly ordered within themselves.

Justice begins in the hearts of people, not in government programs.  Westminster Seminary Church History professor Dr. Carl Trueman said,

Justice, traditionally and historically, is a function of a virtuous citizenry.  You cannot ultimately legislate justice in the truest sense of the word. You have to produce a citizenry, a society of people, who are virtuously just. You can riot on as many streets as you want. You join as many lobby groups as you want. You can sign as many petitions as you want. But the problem of justice is much deeper than the symptomatic issue of racism (or something like that,) that people are addressing head-on. What we’re really seeing in the vacuous way social justice is being used as a term now, is the vacuous nature of moral society…..There is no agreed moral content that allows us to give any meaningful content to the term “social justice” whatsoever.

Without a commonly agreed-upon definition of morality, “social justice” becomes an entirely subjective term. What’s the best way to promote a virtuous citizenry with a common morality? By the transformation of the hearts of people by the gospel.

What did Jesus say about social justice?

​Jesus said that the most important command is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. After that, to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 22:36-40) In a sense, this is a call for a meaningful definition of social justice, not a twitter hashtag version. In fact, Jesus commanded that we help the needy and do our giving in secret (Matthew 6:3-4).

When defined Jesus’ way, the “loving our neighbor as ourselves” part of our faith is an outworking of our faith, not the saving part—and other people don’t always know about it.

What is the gospel? 

When defined biblically, there is no contradiction between social justice and the gospel, but it’s very important to understand both terms and how they interact with each other. Now that we’ve defined social justice, let’s define the gospel. In his book, The Story of Reality, Greg Koukl lays out the gospel in four parts: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration.

To put it very simply, God created the world and everything in it and called it good. Humans fell from God’s grace by rebelling against Him (in other words, we messed it all up, and became separated from God.) God stepped into His creation to redeem the people He created, lived a sinless life, and paid for our rebellion (sin) with His death. He defeated death by resurrecting Himself from the dead and has made a way for us to be in His presence forever if we accept His free gift of salvation and put our trust in Him.

Of course, there is a lot of stuff in between all of that, but this is the basic outline. (For an excellent 5-minute presentation of the gospel, watch this video from James White…. seriously—watch it!)

With this definition of the gospel, Jesus sent His followers out to “make disciples of all nations” in Matthew 28. This is exactly the gospel Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, converting 3,000 people in Acts chapter 2.

Is Social Justice Hijacking the gospel? 

As citizens in a free society, it’s perfectly appropriate for Christians to speak to public officials and to utilize their right to vote. There’s a place for a pastor to speak against injustice and oppression in a sermon from the Word of God. But we need the core gospel as our foundation for going out into the world to be salt and light.

We don’t always get to see true social justice on this side of heaven, but this is why the gospel is so beautiful and freeing. Through our mission to bring the gospel into the whole world, freedom is birthed into the hearts of men and women, and often, true social justice will follow. (For example, the work of abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley was an outworking of their deep faith in Christ… and a fruitful one!)

When social justice is divorced from its biblical context, it can become, at best, a distraction from the heart of the gospel, and at worst, an unbiblical agenda covered with a Christian veneer.  

In some circles, social justice is hijacking the gospel. But as long as we are clear on what the true definitions of “gospel” and “social justice” are, we won’t be in danger of confusing the two.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

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

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

 

Alisa Childers is a wife, a mom, an author, a blogger, a speaker, and a worship leader. She was a member of the award-winning CCM recording group ZOEgirl. Author of Another Gospel (2020), Live Your Truth, and Other Lies (2022), and most recently coauthored The Deconstruction of Christianity (2024), Alisa has become a popular speaker at apologetics and Christian worldview conferences, including ReThink, Unshaken, and Fearless Faith. She has also published at The Gospel Coalition, Crosswalk, the Stream, For Every Mom, Decision magazine, and The Christian Post. You can find out more about her writing and recording ministry at alisachilders.com.

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

/by

Post-Christianity… What’s That?

,

There has been a new term floating around the Evangelisphere (if that’s a word, if it’s not, let’s coin it) in the last few years: “post-Christian.”

FreeThinking Ministries[i] recently changed some verbiage on the website to indicate that the mission of the ministry is to equip the church to engage with the post-Christian culture.

Some might say, “you (FTM) minister to all sorts of people all over the globe. You ought to relate to culture in general” not just the post-Christian parts of culture. Yes, this concern covers both pre- and post-Christian cultures and everything in between. But acknowledging that we live and operate within a largely post-Christian culture is still important if we are to equip the church in the West, and in America more particularly, with relevant strategies for preaching the gospel and discipling believers within it.

Coopting Christian Values

There are many reasons this new dynamic is important, but chief among them is that post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes. This penchant is markedly different from a pre-Christian culture which might have hints of Christian ethics within their culture but without explanation.

“Post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes.” – Josh Klein

Guideposts to the Gospel

In a pre-Christian culture these features can be used as guideposts to the gospel. As former missionary Don Richardson points out in his book Eternity in Their Hearts:

“It was the gospel of Jesus Christ which made the difference for Celts, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. And that is exactly what it will take for Asmat headhunter-cannibals (indigenous group in New Guinea)! All someone has to do is go to live among the Asmat and communicate the gospel as effectively as someone once communicated it to the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and other tribes of Northern Europe!”[ii]

The communication of the gospel to pre-Christian nations is much simpler compared to the work of maintaining the gospel in a Christianized nation. It is simpler, but simple doesn’t mean easy. As someone that has multiple friends in the mission field of pre-Christian cultures I can certainly attest to the fact that it is extremely difficult. It can, however, be much simpler to introduce the gospel and connect the dots in their cultural context than it is to attempt to reestablish orthodoxy in cultures that have moved beyond Christianity.

What is a post-Christian culture?

A post-Christian culture is one that has been reached by the gospel, Christianized (to a large extent) and then sought to leave its Christian roots behind.

All the cultures Richardson mentioned in the above quote have followed this pattern. At one point, these cultures were pagan non-Christian nations only to have the gospel of Jesus Christ rock them and change them for hundreds of years. Then, after Christianity, in large part, brought peace and prosperity they chose to move beyond it and, often, back to their pagan roots, only with a twist.  The paganism became more syncretistic or New-Age than it was in 600AD but the reversion back to it is palpable. Sound familiar?

The United States has been on this path for quite some time and so too, a reversion to certain forms of paganism. The hallmarks of post-Christian society are coming to fruition before our eyes and the Church in the west must learn how to respond.

Often, as Don Richardson argues, in non-Christian cultures one can find cultural hooks on which to contextualize the gospel in a way that makes sense and draws people in. In these cultures, there is a clarity on what C.S. Lewis called the Natural Law that even those who had never heard of God or Jesus would recognize.[iii] Even if some of the “Natural Laws” within the culture were twisted by sin, the reasoning behind these cultural expectations were based on objective morality, integrity, and honor.

For instance, in another book called Peace Child, Richardson outlines the way he was able to communicate the gospel with a head-hunting tribe in New Guinea called the Sawi.[iv] The Sawi had a rule of natural law called a “Peace Child” between warring tribes and it was this concept that opened their hearts to the gospel after previously believing that Judas was the hero of the gospel story.

How Post-Christian Culture Differs

The story in a post-Christian culture is very different. The stories of the Bible have been popularized, modernized, colloquialized, and made into idioms. We see this assimilation in all sorts of discourse. When one sports team takes on another that is heavily favored the pundits will often use the phrase, “it’s a real David and Goliath match-up.” Decidedly Christian and biblical principles are popularized and culturized as well, such as the golden rule, which is taken from Matthew 7:12 whether people realize it or not, or “with great power comes great responsibility” which is borrowed and changed from Luke 12:48 and popularized by the Spiderman comic franchise. And that is only to name a select few.

Unbiblical phrases have been mixed with the spiritual cultural ethos as well. Sayings like, “God only helps those who help themselves,” or “don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.”

It is not so much that people in this culture are ignorant about Jesus but that they think they knows Jesus too well already. Jesus as a figure is often popular within the post-Christian culture[v] but ultimately, upon further examination, it is not the same Jesus we find in the Bible.[vi] The exclusivity of Christ is an issue.

Christianity’s Role in a Post-Christian Culture?

A post-Christian culture is aware of the claims of Christianity but finds them only utilitarian. Often, the question becomes not are these claims literally true but rather, are they efficacious?  As one pastor, who led a breakout session recently on evangelism in a post-Christian culture that I attended, said:

“It is not that unbelievers in our post-Christian culture want to know if Christianity is true. It is that they want to know if it works. We need to show them that it works.”

– Bob Thune, Within Reach Conference, 19 January 2023.

His diagnosis is correct, but his prescription lacks the call to gospel exclusivity. A lot of different things “work” for a lot of different people. Buddhists would adamantly insist that the spirituality of Buddhism works for them. This same sentiment seems to be share among at least 60% of self-professed Christians who indicate that Jesus is not the only way to God.[vii]

Even in the atheistic sphere this utilitarian philosophy of religion, and Christianity in particular, seems to be making headway. One such view is espoused by Bret Weinstein, a former college professor and avowed atheist. Weinstein argues that metaphorical truths are necessary to order the world even if they are not literally true.

Not True, but Useful

He goes on to indicate that while something may be literally false its usefulness as a heuristic for ordering the world around us should not be discarded. In a conversation with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, Weinstein puts it this way:

“If it were true that religious heuristics actually increase wellbeing by allowing people to, on average, operate in the world in a way that increases wellbeing, what would you say about them then?”[viii]

This is utilitarianism. So long as the theological position works for me (or society) it ought to be followed. Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen prey to this line of thinking. They see Bret Weinstein’s refusal to discard religion as a sort of intellectual victory.

If religious belief is simply a useful heuristic for ordering the world it removes the power of the gospel and offers a gospel of its own making. Anything then, can be the gospel, so long as it works for you or for a society. I find Sam Harris’s retort worth considering in this exchange:

“But [belief in God] wouldn’t make sense for the right reason. Useful fictions have to be retired at some point. Useful truths stay true . . . You can have a completely rational conversation, in terms of human psychology, sociology, and what you want society to look like – about moral truths like the corrosive nature of pornography . . . You don’t have to invoke mythology to do that.”[ix]

As much as I hate to admit it Harris is mostly right here.  His position is more tenable to the human pursuit of truth than Weinstein’s. While it might sit better with religious pluralists, secularists, and even some Christians to hear that religious thought is still useful to order society insofar as we have no better option, it is less than helpful. Harris is correct, it is either true that God exists, or it is not true, and any opining for metaphorical truths to be embraced to have our cake and eat it too simply makes belief utilitarian rather than necessary.

It is not enough that a certain belief system works, and the Church must not fall into the trap of trying to prove that it does. Because the gospel only promises things yet to be seen and grasped, it does not prove that life will be ultimately understandable or easy. Buddhism might work inasmuch as one uses it to accomplish inner peace (whatever that means), or structure to the world. Whether it is truly useful or not, however, rests on its being objectively true.

Competing Gospels

In a post-Christian culture, we are struck, not with opposing religious truth claims, but with opposing gospels that promise to bring about hope, satisfaction, and peace. These competing gospels can often invoke the name of Jesus. In fact, progressive Christianity has made its hay on becoming a heuristic style gospel and should serve as a warning to believers embracing Weinstein’s thoughts.

In a post-Christian culture, words like truth, love, hope, and affirmation have all been personalized and redefined to suit our utilitarian mindset. Progressive Christianity, for instance, does not so much ask what is true but offers that whatever feels most loving is true. This is something new to the Western church, and it is a competing gospel that is nefarious because of its ability to morph from person to person under the guise of usefulness.

A post-Christian culture seeks to use aspects of Christianity without maintaining the foundation of it. This idea is not new. In the 18th  century German philosopher Immanuel Kant sought to square the circle of unbelief and the usefulness of Christianity as a moral framework for society.[x] Removing Christ from the center of morality places the individual as the arbiter of it. Kant reasoned that we only know Jesus as moral exemplar because we already have fashioned the highest ideal of what a moral man ought to look like, thus, we judged Christ before he was incarnate.

But this is, of course, exactly backwards to the Christian tradition.  Christ is not simply a moral exemplar because we could not imagine a higher moral standard. He is the moral exemplar because He sets the highest moral standard in Himself as He reveals Himself in the scriptures. Objective moral values are discovered not invented.

Revising Christ

A post-Christian culture sheds the skin of orthodoxy, in a sense, and embraces the subjective nature of the moral good. That is to say that Christ is edited by the moral arbiters of the day. Did Jesus ever really say that homosexuality was a sin or that he was divine? A post-Christian culture can construct a morality borrowing from Christianity, secularism, and other religions and superimpose it on itself. We see a rise in moral language, even invoking the name of Christ, at the same time as the normalization of historically immoral behaviors such as polyamory, pornography, and earth worship. It is this propensity of the culture to which I am referring when I say that evangelism and ministry in a post-Christian culture is more complex than within a non-Christian culture.

Often, the language barrier is an issue. When we speak of justice, love, truth, and fulfillment we are speaking cross-culturally, but because of the Christian past, ideas about Jesus have been erroneously imposed on these new definitions. To make headway we must first establish coherent agreement at the most basic levels, but this is made difficult because the culture, allegedly has progressed beyond the need for foundational truths. The truth of the gospel is inverted to focus mainly on self-actualization and feelings of being an authentic self. This inversion might not challenge missionaries and pastors in pre-Christian settings, but it’s a primary concern for those doing ministry within a post-Christian context.

Post-Christianity says, “we tried that already and now we are beyond it.” The challenge for the church is to expose this lie for what it is. How does one move beyond objective reality and truth? Incidentally, “moving beyond it” is more like reverting back to pagan roots. The worship of nature, self, sex, and hedonistic tendencies. These are not new developments, but they are experienced and promulgated anew in a post-Christian context, often maintaining the language of Christianity to bolster the regressive worship.

This shift is recent in the United States. As recent as 10 years ago political candidates from both parties affirmed the classical definition of marriage, the morality of certain sexual standards, and, even if pro-choice, the recognition that abortion was a tragedy and ought to be safe, legal, and rare.[xi]

What are we to do?

Once the culture flipped though, these supposedly self-evident truths were suddenly up for grabs. People that spent their lives arguing for reason and science to be the basis of morality in society suddenly found themselves arguing for forced vaccination[xii] and for transgenderism.[xiii] When you remove the foundation, everything becomes shaky. Then reintroducing that abandoned foundation seems antiquated. So, what are we to do?

The funny thing about a post-Christian culture is that it relies on the insular or adaptive nature of the Church. The post-Christian culture is more than happy to entertain Christians so long as they isolate themselves into their own groups and, all too often, Christians comply. This self-isolation has happened in Europe and England and it’s happening right now in Canada and the United States. As a pastor friend once said to me, “the Christian life is to be personal, but it is not private.”

On the other hand, the church might try to remain relevant by compromising historic truths for cultural cachet. We sacrifice the relevance of the gospel for the relevance of our popularity.

Neither strategy is tenable for discipling the nation. There is another option, but it is not comfortable. Engage with the post-Christian culture without compromise but with understanding (1 Chron. 12:32). There is an opportunity in a post-Christian culture if one is courageous enough to recognize it. But it comes with risk. Risk of denigration or loss of respect. At least for a time. The truth will set us free (John 8:31-32). God will not be mocked and his Church will remain victorious (Matt. 16:18).

 

 

Footnotes:

[i] The author, Josh Klein is a staff writer and speaker with Free-Thinking Ministries

[ii] Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts: Revised, Regal Books, Ventura, CA, 1984, pp. 118–119.

[iii] Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, UK: Geoffrey Bles, 1952; digitally republished as public domain, Canada: Samizdat, 2014), 13-22, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/vc/pdfs/MereChristianity_CSL.pdf

[iv] Don Richardson, Peace Child (Norwood, MA: Regal, 1985).

[v] https://www.barna.com/research/openness-to-jesus/

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

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Originally in Jordan Peterson v. Sam Harris debate, moderated by Bret Weinstein. Vancouver BC, Canada: Pangburn Philosophy, 23 June 2018), 01:15:36-01:16:14, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1oaSt60b0om, quoted in  https://epiphanyaweek.com/2019/10/20/theism-atheism-and-antitheism-sam-harris-is-wrong-part-3/.

[ix] Ibid., 01:59:03-02:00:11.

[x] https://philarchive.org/archive/PALCKJ

[xi] https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/03/toward-making-abortion-rare-shifting-battleground-over-means-end

[xii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMaHKykfdcQ

[xiii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBl9qwVDvIY

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

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

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

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

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

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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: Post-Christianity… What’s That? | Free Thinking Ministries

/by

Hijacking Jesus | with Jason Jimenez

What do you call a Christian that denies the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ, the Second Coming, miracles, the Atonement, and the Resurrection? They’re called “Progressive” Christians. But if a person rejects the essentials of the faith, are they progressing, or regressing? And are they even Christians at all?

The level of confusion and distorted views that many professing “Christians” have about Jesus are quite shocking. So shocking in fact, that Frank’s guest, Jason Jimenez, was inspired to write his new book ‘Hijacking Jesus: How Progressive Christians Are Remaking Him and Taking Over His Church‘. In this week’s podcast episode, Frank and Jason expose the blatant inconsistencies within Progressive Christianity and share how YOU can defend the faith against this false movement, answering questions like:

  • Why is doctrine a vital component to the Christian faith?
  • What approach do most progressives take in how they interpret the Bible?
  • Do ALL progressives hold to the same beliefs?
  • How do you respond when someone claims that Jesus was a socialist?
  • Why does Jason categorize progressive Christians as modern religious Gnostics?

In their attempt to redefine and reimagine Jesus, Progressive Christians leave the door wide open for glaring contradictions within their own worldview. Listen as Jason will encourage Christians NOT to let these so-called progressive thinkers get away with mischaracterizing the Jesus of Scripture into their own personal, non-historical, and unbiblical Jesus 2.0. You’re not only going to hear where they go wrong, but you’ll also receive GOOD theology that will affirm what all Christians should believe.

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.

Jason’s new book: https://a.co/d/1Ou8cxf

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Are Christians Too Involved in Politics?

Have you ever noticed that most of the disputes we have in our culture and even in the church, are morality based? Whether it’s abortion, marriage, transgenderism, climate change, vaccines, sexuality, etc., they all have to do with some standard of morality. The question is, what standard are we using to make our assessments on those moral issues?

In this midweek podcast episode, Frank reviews two controversial articles from the New York Post regarding a lawsuit imposed on The Chino Valley Unified School District by California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, who wants to block parents from being notified if their child begins to identify as transgender. As Frank reads the shocking details of this case, he’ll answer questions like:

  • How are non-Christian parents responding to this lawsuit?
  • Do minors have a constitutional right to privacy?
  • What is the purpose of the government according to the Bible?
  • Are Christians guilty of idolizing politics?
  • Why should Christians be MORE involved in politics?

Later in the episode, Frank discusses how Greg Koukl helped his wife take a stand at a school board meeting several years ago, and also highlights the real-life horror story of a detransitioner. After this episode, be sure to pick up your copy of the newly updated and expanded, ‘Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism‘, where Frank exposes the catastrophic consequences of homosexuality and transgender ideology based solely on evidence and reason (void of religion).

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.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

California school board battle: https://bit.ly/3PusQsl

CA Attorney General Rob Bonta vs. The Chino Valley Unified school district: https://bit.ly/44K4C1q

Greg Koukl’s school board letter: https://bit.ly/3EwaUr6

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

How to Handle a Faith That is Set Adrift | with Dr. Sean McDowell

When a fellow Christian confides in you that they’re “deconstructing”, what do you say and what kind of advice do you give them? Or even worse, what if YOU aren’t sure what to believe anymore? It can be normal to wrestle with lingering doubts, but this slow and steady process of disillusionment often causes many people in our culture today to completely walk away from the truth of the Christian faith. So when this happens, what’s the best way to help someone tackle those doubts without shipwrecking the saving grace of Jesus Christ?

Our friend and Biola apologetics professor, Dr. Sean McDowell, is no stranger to struggling with doubt. In this week’s podcast episode, Sean joins Frank to talk about overcoming his own season of deconstruction and how his new book (co-authored with John Marriott), ‘Set Adrift: Deconstructing What You Believe Without Sinking Your Faith‘ can help others learn how to deconstruct in a safe way. During the episode, Sean and Frank address questions like:

  • How does Sean define the term deconstruction?
  • What are social imaginaries and how do they impact our worldview?
  • What role does social media play in the deconstruction movement?
  • What are the possible risks and benefits that can come along with deconstructing?
  • How should Christians respond when a loved-one decides to deconstruct?

Being the son of one of the most well-known and well-respected Christian apologists, Josh McDowell, didn’t stop Sean from questioning if Christianity is really true. If you’re in the process of deconstruction, what’s your angle? Are you searching for the truth or avoiding it? Listen as Sean will encourage you to approach self-doubt with reconstruction as the end goal, allowing truth to reign supreme.

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.

Sean’s new book: https://a.co/d/iJeEHRc

 

Download Transcript

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

The ONE Attribute That Heals Relationships | with J. Warner Wallace

What’s the ONE attribute that has the power to change your life, your relationships, and your career? In this midweek episode, homicide detective and best-selling author, J. Warner Wallace returns to talk about the healing power of humility and how he and his wife Susie are helping police officers save their marriages and recover from past trauma with help from the Gospel and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Listen as Jim and Frank tackle questions like:

  • Why do so many police officers face difficulty in marriage?
  • What is the L.E.A.P. program and why are Jim and Susie so passionate about this ministry?
  • What problems do we face when we place our identity outside of Jesus Christ?
  • What is post traumatic growth and how does it compare to PTSD?
  • What does humility REALLY mean and how can it save your life and your marriage?

This unique and fascinating conversation is a great reminder that we can face any trauma or tragedy that comes our way when we place our identity and faith in Jesus Christ. It will also open your eyes to some of the unique challenges that police officers face both in their home life and in the line of duty. We hope it blesses you and you’ll share the episode with friends and loved ones who might benefit from hearing this very important message.

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.

The L.E.A.P. Program: https://bit.ly/3EhvJGm

Order the UPDATED and EXPANDED ‘Cold-Case Christianity’: http://coldcasechristianitybook.com/

 

Download Transcript

 

/by