Tag Archive for: Progressivism

Why Drag Isn’t All Fun and Laughs

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

 

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

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

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

What exactly is the “Drag Queen” philosophy?

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

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

What Defenders Say

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

  1. Literacy and Engagement

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

  1. Inclusion and Diversity

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

  1. Teaching Gender as a Social Construct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the Harm?

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

  1. Normalization of Gender Confusion

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

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

  1. Undermining Parental and Religious Authority

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

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

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

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

  1. Boundary Testing

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

  1. Neo-Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism

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

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

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

A Better Story Hour

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by

Secular Professor Tactics 101

As a parent or student it will help you to know that in many cases your secular professors have a strategy. They have a goal. A strategy is the big-picture plan to win or achieve that goal. Tactics are the step-by-step methods used to carry it out. I’ve told you before that you can see their goal by how they live their own lives. But now let’s look at their classroom tactics.

 

If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you need to understand the tactics of the secular professor. For many of them, “winning” means leading students to adopt a radical leftist ideology—either by outright agreement or by slow, subtle influence. Agreement isn’t always demanded immediately. Sometimes, all they want is your gradual surrender of confidence in anything else.  The big win, however, is final deconversion from Christianity and acceptance of something like the LGBTQ+ “safe zone” philosophy pushed at ASU.

Undermining Christianity: The Real Strategy

The strategy of many secular professors is simple: undermine Christianity. Why? Because Christianity remains the major roadblock to their radical leftist ideology.  Without that, their goal is in sight.

If you had to guess a student’s religion, statistically, you’d guess Christian and be right more often than not. Christianity remains the default framework for morality, identity, and truth for many students, even if only in fragments.  Christian teaching is the main roadblock to the Marxism at the core of the radical left.

And that’s a problem—for them.

The teachings of Christianity are fundamentally incompatible with the radical left’s view of sex, gender, truth, power, and the good life. So, it’s not just about “dialogue” or “working together.” Before they can win a student to their worldview, they must first destabilize the student’s confidence in Christianity. Undermine the foundation, and the rest of the structure will fall. That’s the strategy. Their tactics follow.

How the Strategy Is Carried Out: Tactics You Should Know

This strategy to undermine Christianity is carried out through many identifiable tactics. For parents and students, it’s worth learning these—not only to recognize what’s happening, but also to see how poorly equipped many of these professors are for the intellectual life they claim to lead. Scripture puts it plainly: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). What we’re witnessing in many classrooms today is a real-time application of that verse. Let’s examine a few of their most common tactics. We’ll begin with three—but the list, sadly, is always growing.

Tactic #1: Undermine the Word of God

The first and most foundational tactic is to undermine the authority of Scripture. This can take the form of a direct assault—mocking the Bible as outdated, oppressive, or absurd—or a more subtle approach: cherry-picking verses to support radical leftist ideology.

For example, I have a colleague—openly anti-Christian—who claims that Matthew 25:40 (“Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me”) is the best verse in the Bible. Why? Because she believes it proves her progressive social philosophy. On her reading, all you have to do is advocate for so-called sexual minorities, and you’re doing exactly what Jesus said. No need for sound doctrine. No need to understand the whole Bible. Just grab a single verse and weaponize it.  Incidentally, it is worth noting that in this specific verse, Jesus is speaking about believers.

But that’s only half the tactic. The next step is to accuse actual Christians of not living up to the verse. She’ll claim that conservative Christians don’t care for the poor or marginalized—never mind the fact (which students rarely hear) that conservative Christians out-give atheist professors by a staggering margin when it comes to charity, adoption, missions, disaster relief, and practical acts of compassion.

Still, students don’t know that. So the professor paints a picture: the Bible is on her side, and Christians are hypocrites who don’t live up to it.

You’ll notice she never mentions John 6, where Jesus rebukes the crowd for following Him only to get bread, rather than the Bread of Life. She’s not interested in the full counsel of God—only the verses that can be twisted to serve her ideological agenda.

There are other versions of this tactic. One common move is to deny that the Bible even teaches that homosexuality is a sin. “That’s just in Leviticus,” they’ll say, “and no Christian keeps that anymore.”

I call this the “Did God really say?” tactic. Just like the serpent in the garden, the secular professor begins by sowing doubt: Did God really say that?

Did He really say that homosexuality is a sin?
Did He really define male and female?
Did He really establish the moral order we find in Scripture?

If they can get the student to doubt the clarity, authority, or consistency of God’s Word, they’ve won the first battle.

Tactic #2: Vilify Christianity

The second tactic is to vilify Christianity—to paint it not as the source of civilization’s greatest moral and social advances, but as the root of all historical evil. This is straight out of the classical Marxist playbook, so anyone familiar with the last 150 years of ideology should see it coming a mile away.

Unfortunately, most parents assume we’ve moved past this kind of propaganda. And most students, born long after the fall of the USSR, have never heard a rebuttal. So here’s what they’ll be told:

Christianity invented slavery.
Christianity promoted poverty.
Christians fought to keep people oppressed.

Of course, if you dig long enough, you can always find someone—somewhere—who called themselves a Christian and said something foolish or sinful. That’s not hard. But that’s not the [larger] truth. The truth is this: Christianity gave birth to orphanages, hospitals, and universities. It introduced the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and the foundation for economic growth and human rights. Christianity gave entire nations the hope of a better future in this life—and the next.

You won’t hear that in most classrooms. Instead, students will be told that Christianity supported slavery. But the historical reality is that slavery was universal in the ancient world. Christianity challenged and ultimately abolished it in Christianized nations—while it still exists today in non-Christian societies.

Why do professors hide this? Because the tactic is designed to make students (specifically white male Christian students) ashamed of their own heritage, their faith, and their families. That shame softens them. Once a student is ashamed of Christianity, they can be more easily reprogrammed and brainwashed. The Marxists knew this. And today’s professors are still using the same tactic with unnerving skill.

Tactic #3: Teach That It Doesn’t Matter Either Way

This tactic is all about misdirection. Unlike the first two, which confront Christianity directly, this one tries to bypass it entirely. The professor simply avoids mentioning the Bible at all. Why? Because attacking it outright might prompt a student to open it—and then the risk is that the student might actually be convinced by its truth. So, instead, the tactic is silence.

The professor communicates—both directly and indirectly—that the student can live a good, meaningful, moral life without ever knowing what the Bible says. If Scripture does come up, it’s brushed aside with a casual, dismissive remark: “Oh, the Bible? Sure, there are a few good things in there—for people who like that sort of thing.”

The message is clear: the Bible is irrelevant.
Not dangerous. Not sacred. Just… beside the point.
Outdated. Unnecessary. Background noise.

This is misdirection at its finest—because it leaves the student disarmed. There’s no battle to fight if the battlefield itself is ignored. The professor shifts the student’s focus to career, activism, self-expression—anything but divine truth. And over time, the student begins to believe the lie that neutrality is possible, and that the big questions of life—truth, meaning, morality, destiny—can be answered without reference to God. But that is not neutrality. That’s secularism in disguise.

Spot the Tactic: A Challenge for Students

Recognizing these tactics is the first step to seeing how certain professors use their class time—not to educate—but to advance a strategy of deconverting Christian students. In fact, you might even turn it into a bit of a game. Challenge your friends:

  • Who can spot the most tactics in a single class session?
  • Whose course schedule has the most ideologically driven professors?
  • Who can most clearly connect the tactics to the broader strategy?

Keep score. Compare notes. And when you’re ready, send me your tallies—I’ll make sure they’re seen by those with oversight at the university. Because let’s be clear: taxpayers aren’t funding this nonsense.[1] And it certainly doesn’t qualify as “education.”

References:

[1] [Editor’s note: At least, taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund any anti-religious bigotry or anti-Christian indoctrination or deconversion tactics.]

Recommended Resources:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download) 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

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

/by

Ten Philosophical Challenges Christian Students Face at Secular University

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

Did God Really Say . . . ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten Challenges For Christians Going to Secular University

Number 10: Academic Skepticism.

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

Number 9: Religious and worldview pluralism.

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

Number 8: Scientism.

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

Number 7: Pragmatism.

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

Number 6: Higher Criticism.

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

Number 5: Existentialism.

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

Number 4: Cultural Relativism.

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

Number 3: Marxism of various kinds.

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

Number 2: LGBTQ+.

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

Number 1: Activism.

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

Be Prepared

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

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

 

Footnotes:

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

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

Recommended Resources:

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

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

/by

How The After Party Curriculum Is Sowing Political Confusion in the Church

For those who haven’t heard of it, The After Party (TAP) is a small group curriculum and corresponding book that is being heavily promoted this election year to individuals, churches, and Christian institutions (such as colleges) to counter the “dangerous trend” of evangelicals having their political identity formed by “partisan forces, not by true Biblical faith.”

What is The After Party Curriculum?

The curriculum was developed by David French (New York Times columnist), Russell Moore (Editor-in-Chief of Christianity Today), and Curtis Chang. Fewer people are familiar with Chang than with French and Moore, but for context, his most notable project was called “Christians and the Vaccine,” through which he led a national effort to convince Covid vaccine-resistant evangelicals that their “anxiety, distrust of institutions, and political polarization” was threatening the vaccine’s potential for “healing our world.”

Earlier this year, TAP made a lot of headlines when journalist Megan Basham published a First Things article detailing how the whole project was funded by hard-left foundations (“Follow the Money to The After Party”). Alisa Childers and I also did an episode on our Unshaken Faith podcast in February in which we discussed the inherent problems with progressives funding Christian curriculum (as well as other concerns about TAP).

Since then, I’ve heard from quite a few people with concerns that their church is rolling the curriculum out this fall. When they share Megan’s article or Alisa’s and my episode, some of these churches recognize the implications and change course. However, others have pushed back to say that we didn’t specifically address the content of the curriculum, only the funding. While I think the funding speaks for itself (listen to my recent podcast interview with Megan, in which we spend about 10 minutes discussing why), I want to now address—in depth—why the content itself is clearly problematic. It might seem peculiar that I would write my longest article ever on such a niche topic, but I hope that this level of detail will give pastors and concerned church members a better understanding of why this book should absolutely be avoided.

In particular, for purposes of this article, I’m evaluating the book specifically. While the book is not a necessary part of the small group curriculum, TAP creators say, “This paradigm-shifting book is designed to complement the course. Read it beforehand to discern if the course is a fit for your needs—or read it afterward to go deeper on a Jesus-centered approach to politics.” So, in their estimation, this is a deeper exploration of their approach and claims in the small group curriculum; if you agree that the book is problematic given what I say below, then the small group curriculum should be ruled out as well given their stated relationship.

What’s the Goal of TAP?

Before you can understand the key problems with TAP, it’s important to understand their stated goals. According to their website:

“The After Party is a collection of resources designed by the non-profit Redeeming Babel to help you move towards better Christian politics. Our video course, book, and worship music were designed for pastors & people who know there’s a better way to ‘do politics.’ As you engage with our materials, you’ll be equipped & encouraged to do the hard work of engaging across differences, reframe your political identity in light of the Gospel’s promises, and focusing your heart & mind on the ‘how’ of relating to each other before the ‘what’ of political opinions.”

Reading this description and other similar marketing language TAP uses, you might think it’s pretty innocuous. People can absolutely treat each other poorly in discussing politics, we’re in the middle of a particularly contentious election season, Christians need to have their identity first and foremost in Jesus, and it can be good to be reminded that how we engage does matter.

In fact, in going to their site right now to grab a link for this article, I was shown the following pop-up:

“We’d love to send you a free sample of our latest book to help you (perhaps!) reframe how you think about politics in light of biblical virtues like kindness, love, and mercy. It’s practical & full of hope—and we think you’ll like it!”

Again, this sounds great.

From TAP’s marketing, one would think this is simply a curriculum to help Christians think about charitable communication. The creators repeatedly claim it’s non-partisan and continually emphasize this is just about the “how”—something any church should be able to get behind, or so the story goes.

But, to be blunt, I believe this is highly disingenuous marketing given the content of the book. The marketing is designed to attract churches who would like to simply encourage charitable communication, but the execution is designed to convince Christians that they shouldn’t be so conservative.

The marketing is designed to attract churches who would like to simply encourage charitable communication, but the execution is designed to convince Christians that they shouldn’t be so conservative.

In fact, when you really see through what they’re saying in TAP—as I’ll demonstrate in a moment—it’s completely obvious why hard-left foundations funded it. Although TAP repeatedly said publicly that the funding source shouldn’t matter, any reasonable person should want to know why progressive non-Christian organizations would be interested in financing a church curriculum. TAP trivialized the importance of that question, but it’s easily answered when you read the book. Given the content, I could imagine TAP’s pitch to these progressive foundations sounding something like this:

“We, like you, despise Donald Trump. And we, like you, are greatly disturbed by how many Christians helped put him in power. But Christians still predominantly think that they should vote Republican regardless of who the candidate is—even if it’s a despotic threat like Trump. We believe that if we can get Christians to think that politics is more complex than they realize, that they can’t ever be certain that their view on a given subject aligns with what God thinks, and that being humble means seeing all political positions as equally viable for Christ followers . . . then we’ll see a weaker correlation with Christians and conservative positions over time. The key is to introduce these subjects using marketing language that’s nonthreatening and that every Christian should presumably agree on going into it—for example, that we should engage more graciously with one another. This curriculum would therefore be sold as the ‘how’ of doing politics, but in execution, we hope to weaken the Republican party’s hold on the church. Want to help us fund it?”

Yes, I’m reading into their motivations. But the rest of this long article will make my case for why I believe this is a fair characterization.

On a final note before we get into the details, church leaders and other Christians who think the hypothetical pitch above represents a worthy project will, of course, love TAP. This article isn’t for them. This article is for those churches who have been deceived by the marketing into thinking this is just a curriculum about better communication and would be gravely concerned to find out it’s actually going to confuse their members into believing there’s moral equivalence between the political parties. If you and/or your church leaders believe there is no moral equivalence on major issues such as abortion, gender ideology, neo-Marxist indoctrination in K-12 schools, and all the societal manifestations of identity politics, then you’ll want to stay far away from sowing the seeds of confusion this curriculum will bring. Whether Christians choose to vote for Trump or a third party is another question, but if you recognize the danger in pushing Christians to the Democratic platform, you need to understand in detail what TAP is trying to do.   

Here’s what you should know.

  1. Despite the claims of the creators, TAP is in no way “non-partisan.”

The book opens with a story about a couple named Sean and Emily, whose kids are asking why they don’t see Sean’s parents, Jack and Cindy, anymore. The reader learns that it’s due to “political differences.” Jack and Cindy are described as a couple who grew up where “almost everyone was White, Republican, and conservative Christian” (p. 2). Because of this background, TAP describes them as utterly unable to understand “diversity” (p. 2). Sean leaves home and in college meets “faithful Christians with and entirely different cultural perspectives from his own…His assumption that Christian identity should equate to conservative politics was weakening” (p. 3).

While Jack and Cindy are portrayed condescendingly as conservatives with no understanding of the diverse world around them, Sean’s Japanese-American wife Emily is portrayed sympathetically as someone with a “keen sympathy with those who have been excluded by our country and a sensitivity to the legacy of systemic injustice.” Emily feels over time that Jack’s repeated political comments are an attack on her personally, and she and Sean decide to not see them further. The bottom line is clear: The conservative parents with a “homogenous background” didn’t prepare them for recognizing how others differ (p. 8). TAP says, “If diversity was never present in your life, you will struggle to understand others who are different from you and to navigate a national context defined by difference” (p. 12).

Chapters later in the book, TAP revisits the story, tells how Sean finally told his dad that he was offended by his assumption that his political ideology was the only correct one, and concludes that Sean’s indignation is what finally humbled Jack.

This opening story sets the tone for the rest of the book. Conservatives are always the ones who need to learn to open their eyes to other viewpoints.

“The tone of the book: Conservatives are always the ones who need to open their eyes other viewpoints”

For example, David French speaks to how he went from a confident conservative to one who started questioning certain conservative positions “the more he learned” (p. 83). Nancy French (David’s wife and co-author of the book) describes her time as a ghostwriter for political leaders saying, “My clients, many of whom were churchgoing Christians, did not necessarily believe that the Jesus ethic applied to politics. They were fine with using sharp elbows, slightly twisting the truth, or unfairly characterizing an event to meet their needs. When I pushed back, they called me naïve. They said that the Left was playing hardball and we needed to as well, or we’d get left behind” (p. 63). Clearly, she’s talking specifically about conservatives here.

Similarly, Curtis Chang wrote, “In the first month of my freshman year, I met some Black Christian undergraduates who invited me to a weekly Saturday morning study group. I had grown up in a quasi-fundamentalist church that entirely avoided any teaching on politics. My new friends were the first Christians I had ever met who were trying to dig into Scripture to excavate the connections between faith and politics. They believed the central connection between these two realms was justice” (p. 139). He goes on to define justice through a progressive lens of systemic racism, and it was his supposed enlightenment about racial issues that made him less conservative. In a rare moment of balance, he did acknowledge that he then swung “way over to the left side” of the political spectrum and that he began seeing problems there too.

Here are several other examples of how TAP is not non-partisan in execution:

  • Russell Moore says that multiple pastors have told him that when they quote the Sermon on the Mount, “specifically the part that says to turn the other cheek, they get pushback from their congregants. Invariably, someone will come up after the service and ask, ‘Where did you get those liberal talking points?’” (p. 47). Of course, that implies these are conservatives who keep getting things wrong. TAP goes on to patronizingly explain how these conservatives just don’t understand Jesus’s instruction in the Sermon on the Mount. The irony is that the passage on turning the other cheek is about what to do when someone personally insults you. It has nothing to do with the nature of how Christians should advocate for righteousness in the public square (other than turning the other cheek when someone personally insults you for that advocacy).
  • TAP mocks the idea that anyone would think Christianity is “under attack.” They suggest that readers Google that phrase to get an idea of “pundits or organization[s] using this line of panicked reasoning to separate you from the money in your wallet” (p. 68). Progressives, of course, don’t think Christianity is under attack. Many conservatives, however, do look at what is going on in the legal sphere and believe that to be the case (see the Alliance Defending Freedom for examples). So, in mocking this idea, they are implicitly mocking conservatives.
  • Despite the fact that TAP repeatedly shows disdain for Christians who care deeply concerned about the “what” of politics (more on that shortly), the authors repeatedly raise the example of the 1960s civil rights movement and corresponding societal changes as glowing examples of political change. Apparently racial justice is an acceptable and important “what”—and one that they’re willing to highlight because it’s not considered an unpopular conservative position today (p. 69). Almost inexplicably, they say “compromise instead of power plays” is a key to the how of politics they seek. One has to wonder if they think the civil rights movement should have compromised. I doubt they’d say that.
  • When discussing the personality profile of what they call the political “cynic,” they say, “As more citizens are influenced by the self-certitude of cynicism, the average person is increasingly willing to believe that he—armed with a few online videos produced by fringe voices (that sound very confident)—know better about the complexities of specific issues than the established scientific institutions” (p. 75). It doesn’t take a genius to know this is a reference to Covid and the fact that many conservatives questioned “the science.” Regardless of your Covid views, it’s another example of conservatives being singled out, even when not explicit.
  • As Chang tells his personal story, he says, “At the same time, conservative White evangelicals were being swamped with misinformation since the initial response to the pandemic had been politicized. Conservative White distrust of public-health institutions was riding high, and the vaccine was being swept up in that wave of misinformation and distrust.” As I said earlier, Chang led an initiative to convince evangelicals to get vaccinated, and because he encountered racist comments online, he commented, “The presence of racism within conservative politics is just as real, and it’s ugly. I had to ask myself, ‘Do I really want to try to save the lives of people who seem to hate my people?’” (p. 163). Clearly, (white) conservatives are pictured here as holding disdainful views. And surely there are conservatives who do have disdainful views…just as there are progressives with disdainful views. But it’s the conservatives that TAP continually frames negatively.

Bottom line: While TAP occasionally pays lip service to how people on both sides of the political aisle can err, the overriding and very clear theme is that conservatives are less sophisticated thinkers who don’t understand the complexities of other views and vote conservatively because it’s all they’ve ever associated with Christianity. TAP clearly wants people to start believing their biblical worldview doesn’t have to lead to conservative positions. It’s not non-partisan to obviously work toward moving people away from one specific political side.

  1. Even if one were to believe TAP is non-partisan, no one can deny TAP is specifically anti-Trump.

While I think I’ve provided plenty of examples that represent how the book seeks to move people away from conservative views, let’s say for the sake of argument you want to give TAP the benefit of the doubt and are going to believe they are non-partisan at least in intention (even if not execution). What no one can deny is that the book is specifically anti-Trump. This shouldn’t be surprising if you know that the authors are all outspoken “never Trumpers.” And that comes through loud and clear.

Trump is mentioned multiple times, either explicitly or implicitly, all in a negative sense. January 6th in particular is in view several of those times. For example, TAP says,

“The events of January 6, 2021, revealed how even that bulwark is threatened. As a country, we now have a very recent experience of a violent insurrection, stirred by an outgoing president who consciously mobilized the us-versus-them mentality to resist the peaceful transfer of power” (p. 16).

“We now face a growing number of false Christian teachers spewing the heresy that followers of Jesus should take up arms as happened at the insurrection on January 6, 2021. That date is an unmistakable sign: the threat of political violence is real” (p. 153).

I don’t recall any corresponding concern with violence from the left.

As another example, after reflecting on the Sermon on the Mount, TAP says,

 “Sadly, American evangelical political culture somehow exempts followers and leaders from these practices. We vote for candidates who blatantly and gleefully violate these practices commanded by Jesus because we believe practices based on spiritual values (versus political expediency) are not adequate for the moment” (p. 47).

It’s pretty obvious that three “never Trumpers” are talking about Trump, who is (rightly) known for problematic character in certain aspects of his life. There’s no discussion of why some conservatives chose to vote for Trump based on policy comparisons between the parties—just accusatory statements about how people voting for Trump don’t believe “spiritual values” are “adequate.”

Lest anyone think I’m reading too much into TAP’s statements about Trump, I’ll point you to David French’s response in a Holy Post podcast when he was asked why Christian sources weren’t willing to fund the curriculum. He said, “When you take on MAGA, a lot of threats and intimidation follow.” I was surprised he played his hand so obviously in that statement, but he explicitly sees TAP as taking on MAGA.

For the record, there are zero mentions of Biden in TAP. Given that this election comes down to Biden’s successor and Trump, and TAP is explicitly anti-Trump, it’s no stretch of the imagination to say that TAP is seeking to discourage Christians from thinking they should vote for the Republican candidate this year. That’s not to say they are directly claiming Christians should vote for the Democratic candidate, but rather that they want fewer Christians to consider Trump a viable choice for believers. And if fewer do, it of course implies some of them will vote for Harris. Indeed, David French recently wrote a New York Times op-ed titled, “To Save Conservativism from Itself, I Am Voting for Harris.” I didn’t have to see his op-ed to know how he would vote. I could easily gather that from TAP.

And maybe you agree with David French’s assessment. My point here is not to make a case either way. What I am saying is that it’s entirely disingenuous to market TAP as a non-partisan curriculum designed to just help Christians communicate more graciously given what I’ve summarized here. I think it’s fair to say that TAP’s highest goal is that Christians don’t vote for Trump. Everything else is a byproduct.

  1. Despite the marketing, TAP is not just about the “how” of politics, but about the importance of the “how” over the “what.”

TAP says, for example, “We need better Christian politics. ‘Better’ doesn’t mean we need to change our political views. But it does mean we need to change our hearts” (p. 26). This is representative of the book’s repeated idea that our “how” is more important than our “what.”

I would agree that the “how” is important—basically, we shouldn’t be jerks to one another—but can we really say that the manner of our conduct is more important than the positions themselves? Can we really say that it’s more important that a Christian be kind when communicating than that they hold a pro-life position opposed to the slaughter of innocent preborn humans? Can we really say that we need to be gracious in communication more so than we need an understanding that gender ideology and its policy manifestations are abhorrent to God? Of course, we would hope that Christians do the “how” well and hold God-honoring positions for the “what.” But it’s very problematic to claim that the “how” is more important.

  1. Not only does TAP place the “how” over the “what,” it often has disdain for the “what.”

TAP says, “A political party is defined by the collective drive to win, to defeat the opposing party” (p. 45). This is cast as a bad thing that gets in the way of relationships. But it’s a bizarre statement. The drive to win doesn’t define a political party. A political party is “an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a particular country’s elections” (as one example definition from Wikipedia). In a country with a healthy government, there will be elections, and therefore parties. Of course, the parties want their own candidate to win and defeat the other candidate. And if one party consistently promotes an agenda that’s opposed to godly views, we should be happy that any other party would want to defeat that party. There’s nothing inherently problematic about a political party wanting to win; that’s the nature of what a political party is. But TAP repeatedly makes statements like this that I believe show a disdain for any Christian thinking there’s one right position to hold on any given issue—the “what.”

Perhaps the most egregious of all statements with respect to this issue is the following:

“The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) summarizes Jesus’ most often repeated teachings. In those chapter, Jesus does not advocate for either rival political camp’s specific policies. And if you try to draw a clear and incontestable arrow from Jesus’ teaching to a specific policy debate between today’s Right and Left, you can do so only by greatly distorting Jesus’ words to fit your political agenda” (p. 46).

First of all, as Christians, we don’t singularly use the Sermon on the Mount to determine our theology even if what TAP says here were true. Romans 13, for example, is directly related to politics and clearly states that government is a God-given institution for the purpose of promoting good and restraining evil. That requires us to know what good and evil are and advocate accordingly. We can absolutely map certain issues (not all) to what is good and evil by God’s definition (abortion and gender ideology being obvious examples).

Second, part of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’s famous teaching about being salt and light. Our light is meant to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). Yes, we need to be gracious and care about relationships with people (as the book emphasizes), but that’s a matter of approach not content. The content of what we advocate for is what illuminates evil in society.

But TAP doesn’t try to help Christians understand how important their political views are in shaping a society for God’s good and against evil. Instead, TAP sees one of the greatest evils as having a “partisan mind.” For example, TAP says that the person with a partisan mind who is also a Christian “believes not only that us is right but also that us is on God’s side” (p. 84). There’s no discussion about whether or not it’s possible for a position to actually line up with God’s side—just that if you think you think you’re on God’s side, that’s a sign of a problematic “partisan mind.” The partisan mind is even compared to a “forbidden weapon” (p. 88), and it’s mentioned 21 times in the book.

Furthermore, TAP says that:

“the struggle is not against flesh and blood: it is not Right versus Left, Republican versus Democrat. The battle is against the devil, the Evil One who seeks to undermine the credibility of the cross’s power to ‘reconcile all things.’ The devil is trying to pit people against each other via politics” (p. 98).

The struggle is against spiritual forces, but those spiritual forces have aims being worked out in the material world. Take gender ideology, for example. Yes, it’s a spiritual battle that people have come to believe that gender is a social construct rather than God’s good design and are mutilating their bodies accordingly. But the Democratic party is proactively promoting gender ideology as truth to the harm of many. I’m not sure the devil cares much about pitting people against each other for the sake of seeing us argue, as TAP makes it sound. But I’m very sure the devil cares to confuse society about God’s design. We need to love people enough to stand up for truth in society and advocate accordingly for policies. Yes, it’s a spiritual battle, but there are humans carrying it out. TAP knows this, though—a couple of pages later they talk glowingly about the civil rights movement (carried out by people, of course). So, it’s not disdain for all “whats,” just the ones conservatives tend to champion.

  1. TAP thinks humility means not being confident that your views align with the Bible.

TAP gives a passing nod to the fact that “our religious commitments can and should inform our political commitments,” but it’s obvious they don’t think we should be confident our positions are the only positions that align with the Bible. Why? Apparently, humility requires it.

Much of TAP is defined by this statement: “The After Party project believes that hope and humility are crucial spiritual values for political discipleship under Jesus” (p. 56).

TAP relates the account of the disciples James and John asking Jesus to sit at His right and left in glory (Mark 10:35-45). Because Jesus rebukes them for not knowing what they ask for, TAP concludes, “Jesus’s assessment of them is clear: When it comes to your political hopes, your knowledge is incomplete. Your hope needs to be paired with humility.” I honestly have no idea how they are drawing this conclusion. To conflate James and John’s heavenly hope with the hope we have for earthly political outcomes is, again, egregious.

In another discussion of humility, TAP says, “Instead of being preoccupied with our party coming out on top, we focus on serving others” (p.64). This is simultaneously a strawman and a false dichotomy. Conservative Christians who are passionate about advocating for righteousness on top priority issues like abortion aren’t “preoccupied” in some unhealthy way as this implies—we are rightfully and gravely concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies. I can’t think of a better way to “serve others” than by working to be a voice for the preborn.

TAP wants readers to think that issues are so complex, we can only be arrogant (surely not humble) to think we know the right position. They ask questions like: Are we overconfident in believing that we alone have mastered the enormous complexity of this issue? And is it possible that, like James and John, we do not fully know what we are asking? They then very strangely claim that because politicians “obsessed with winning on the what of politics” shouldn’t be so confident about what they’ll accomplish because James 4:13-15 says we shouldn’t boast about tomorrow (p. 66)! I guess we should all stop talking about the direction of our country since we don’t know about tomorrow. (Of course that’s a ridiculous conclusion—the entire Bible presupposes that we should care about the just functioning of society. The what of politics. These verses are talking about not boasting in the presumed direction of your own life.)

Similarly, TAP says, “Whether we’re talking about Christmas pork or Christian politics, the Bible emphasizes that spiritual maturity means understanding that you do not know everything, and you could be wrong, so tread carefully” (p. 67). Spiritual maturity is about many things, and I suppose we could say one aspect of it is understanding that humans have finite knowledge and that we must trust in God’s perfect knowledge. That, however, is a far cry from suggesting that spiritual maturity requires someone to remain in a perpetual state of uncertainty over things God has clearly stated. In other words, we don’t need to continually think we could be wrong when God has already said. In fact, I’d say it’s a sign of spiritual immaturity for someone to waiver in their understanding of things Christians should have clarity about.

As another example, in their profile of the “Combatant” personality type, they say that what is needed for such a person is humility because “they believe confidently that their side is right, and that’s that” (p. 72). TAP criticizes this personality because “out of all the profiles, the Combatants care the most about winning. For them, the stakes are very high.” When it comes to the lives of millions of preborn babies, I absolutely care about winning and believe the stakes are very high. I believe confidently that this “side” is right because I believe confidently that the pro-life cause aligns with what God wants. None of that inherently means I (or other pro-lifers) lack humility. On issues that are insignificant, it could mean that. But TAP doesn’t make such distinctions. They avoid talking about issues Christians absolutely should care about winning on and where the stakes are high in order to broadly make the claim that we shouldn’t be so sure of ourselves.

Meanwhile, the “Disciple” (political) personality type is held up as the goal for all: “Disciples are humble: they recognize that the political world is defined by complexity, and this means that there are rarely obvious and easy answers. Disciples believe firmly in objective truth but are much less firm that they themselves have complete ownership of truth” (p. 75). Again, humility here is defined by giving deference to “complexity.” But, again, those who believe that God has revealed clear truth in the Bible should be confident in those truths. We don’t have “complete ownership” from relying on our own understanding, but rather we have “complete ownership” of those truths as God has revealed. We are to steward those truths well, not remain in uncertainty under a false notion of humility.

  1. TAP avoids talking about the central moral issues conservatives rightly prioritize and instead uses examples where Christians can legitimately disagree.

When they give examples of how Christians should recognize complexity, they stick to listing issues that Christians realize could legitimately have varied views: “We gravitate to the narrative that our politics are motivated by the what: what ideology, party, and policies we support. We like to think we have sorted through all the options and have chosen the best positions on issues like tax rates, foreign policy, and education. If we are Christians, we additionally want to believe that our ideas are derived from our faith in Jesus” (p. 31).

I think, to a degree, Christians can have different views on tax rates, foreign policy, and education. To use these examples lures the reader into a false sense of broader agreement. But if they had said, “best positions on issues like abortion, gender ideology, and neo-Marxism,” they know they would have lost the conservatives they hope to influence. Conservatives would look at those three examples and say there is a right position, biblically, on these things.

In another section, David French says, “The emotional grievances we feel over these very real incidents are a far more powerful factor in our political choices and loyalties than the intellectual disagreements that arise when we debate tax cuts, trade policy, or foreign affairs. And, more importantly, the debates over these issues work to reaffirm the belief that the other side is morally depraved” (p. 36). Again, he lists debatable issues.

In yet another section, the example given of opposing political ideologies is that “a liberal favors a more active government while a conservative insists on a more limited government” (p. 44). This is, of course, true, and Christians can legitimately disagree on the size of government when it comes to many subjects. But it’s disingenuous to use that as an example to contrast the two sides when the authors surely know this is not primarily what concerns conservative Christians about the left.

In trying to show that the authors do believe Christians “can still care about the what of politics,” they say this:

“All of us (David, Russell, and Curtis) have spent good parts of our professional lives advocating that Christians should support particular policies like religious liberty, racial justice, free speech, defense of weaker nations against foreign oppression, generous care for the poor, and vaccination to protect the common good. The three of us care about the what” (p. 50).

It’s telling that something like

“vaccination to protect the common good” makes the list but not things like abortion, protection for minors against transgender surgeries, support for biblical marriage, or parental rights—all issues considered “conservative.”

Shortly after, TAP makes this astounding statement:

“Here’s a question: How confident are you that you are in perfect similarity and solidarity with Jesus on the whats of Christian life? Consider the religious equivalent of ideology: say, the theology of the Trinity or the doctrine of the Eucharist. Consider the religious equivalent of policy: say, the correct approach to personal finances or sexual behavior. On these whats, how confident are you that you live in perfect similarity and solidarity with Jesus?” (p. 50)

I had to reread this several times because I thought I must be misunderstanding that they are actually putting personal finances and sexual behavior in a similar bucket of “we can’t be confident we know Jesus’s views.” It’s so mind-blowing that I still wonder if I’m misunderstanding, but I don’t see how. Of course we know Jesus’s views on sexual behavior. That’s a moral category that the Bible is clear on.

Final Thoughts

If you’ve made it this far, you may be surprised to know that there’s far more that could be said about the problems with this book (erroneous applications of Scripture as one example). But I hope this will suffice to demonstrate to those seeking discernment on this curriculum that it should be strongly avoided. If you’re a church member whose church is supporting TAP this fall, I highly encourage you to share this article with your pastor. If he’s happy with TAP’s approach and the study continues, take the time to attend the group and share your own view. Consider sharing this article with fellow participants as well. Do what you can to get more Christians thinking biblically and critically about these important subjects.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

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

/by
A Clarifying Journey of Intervention, Detox & Recovery

A Clarifying Journey of Intervention, Detox & Recovery

By Terrell Clemmons

Oh, joy, somebody selling something, I thought when my doorbell rang. It was getting dark, so I switched on the porch light before stepping out to a tall, spunky, clipboard-clutching brunette waiting ever so patiently for the homeowner to come to the door. Katie represented an organization that protected consumers from unreasonable utility charges, and she was collecting signatures on two bills pending in our state Senate. An admitted idealist, she was concerned about the “little old lady” who might lose her home if her power bills went up. She was also upset about corporate greed and believed that there was a need for more regulation. She became an activist because she cared about these matters.

I asked her if she had considered whether rising taxes might pose a threat to that little old lady. She answered honestly that she hadn’t. I wondered aloud about the possibility of regulator–regulatee collusion. She hadn’t thought about that either, but she did like the word “collusion.” We talked for something like 20 minutes.

I didn’t sign her petition or donate to the cause. But I did accept her literature and contact information. A quick visit to her organization’s website the next day turned up a job posting for a “Community Organizer Position” with the job description of educating, organizing, and empowering citizens in an exciting, progressive work environment. Applicants could apply for full-time work at $325+/week or part-time at $8/hour with opportunities for bonuses. Benefits included paid holidays, paid vacations, health insurance, and college credit.

I liked Katie. She was bright, confident, and to all appearances genuinely well-meaning. But I couldn’t help but wonder: Was she really an idealistic servant aiding the oppressed? Or was she the hired tool of a duplicitous political organization? She seemed to believe the former. I suspected the latter.

The Paradox of Progressivism

Katie is emblematic of many in her generation. She believes she’s doing good, but from all I could gather, she’s investing her precious young adult years working on the wrong side of progress. In his excellent primer, The KinderGarden of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks, Evan Sayet analyzes the mentality driving the progressive agenda with surgical precision. There are “two kinds of Modern Liberals,” he writes, “the True Believer and his Mindless Foot Soldier.” There’s a difference between them, but, as he continues, “there is absolutely no difference between the two when it comes to the policies they support.” Sayet predicts that the Modern Liberal will at every turn side with the evil over the good, the wrong over the right, the lesser over, the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the vulgar over the refined, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. A quick visit to Katie’s Facebook page showed her to be an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood, along with Occupy Wall Street and a few other groups that fit this prediction to a tee, including one devoted solely to mocking Evangelical Christians.

I didn’t like applying Sayet’s terminology to Katie. To all appearances, she’s anything but mindless. But sadly, she fits the characteristics of the Mindless Foot Soldier. Even more sad, she’s like a lot of people I know, young and old, blithely carrying out, according to Sayet’s model, “the progressive agenda of destroying all that is good, right, and successful [about] Western Civilization.” And all in the name of good intentions. If it seems convoluted, that’s because it is. But what can be done?

Coming Alongside

Dr. Mike Adams, of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, has produced an excellent example of how to go about engaging someone like Katie. Though more often known for biting sarcasm and barbed wit, with Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don’t Understand, the professor provocateur takes on a markedly softer tone. At the center of the tale is Zach, a composite of countless bright students he’s known who enroll in universities but while there “become increasingly enraged at the world and disgusted with other people. This is unfortunate,” he observes, “because they are getting angry over things that aren’t even true.”

When Zach made a comment in class comparing TV personality Glenn Beck to serial murderer Charles Manson, Dr. Adams could have set the record straight right there on the spot. But he didn’t do that. Instead, he came alongside his student, so to speak, by means of a personal letter. “I haven’t written to scold you,” he starts off. “I don’t have the moral authority to do so. You see, I used to be like you. Let me explain.” Then, after telling Zach something of his personal backstory as a dysfunctional, angry pseudo-intellectual himself, he gets to the point.

Zach, you are so bright and have so much potential that I think it’s a shame you are so angry at such a young age. I also think it’s a shame because I know that so much of your anger stems from misinformation… If you’re interested, I’d be happy to write to you periodically over the summer to share some of what I learned on my journey from being a progressive atheist to becoming a conservative Christian.

Intellectual Detox

Then, over the course of 34 more letters brimming with factual data, watertight logic, common sense, and a generous sprinkling of stories from his own life, the teacher deconstructs for his protégé a plethora of progressive myths. He shows how the Social Security program disproportionately transfers income from the average black working man to his white counterpart, how race-based affirmative action hinders, rather than boosts, black upward mobility, and how campus speech codes, rather than helping the minorities they were enacted to “protect,” simply reinforce stereotypes of them as hypersensitive and emotionally volatile weaklings.

Although he foregoes the barbs, Adams’s wit is alive and well. In a letter called “Government Subsidies and Spousal Abuse,” he picks up on a common experience with a cell phone company. During his fifth visit to the store after four rate changes and four broken promises,

I lost my temper and let loose with something like the following: “You’re not really an Internet provider… You’re more like an abusive spouse. You treat me disrespectfully until I threaten to leave you, and then you promise to make things better. But they only get better for a while because you don’t change. You just lie to me to get me back because you can’t live without me.”

The story is comical because it’s so relatable, but “there is a serious point to be made here,” he continues.

When the government gets involved in trying to solve a problem, it invariably makes things worse. Your cell phone provider—my previous Internet provider—is subsidized by the federal government. For that one reason, and that one reason alone, you are unlikely to ever get good service from them. Because the federal government has built a safety net beneath it, it is not afraid of failing. That is why its employees behave so carelessly towards you… It’s basic human psychology.

Diagnosis: Statolatry

Much of what he relates to Zach is basic, but sadly, decades of progressive education have produced a preponderance of misguided Zachs and Katies, to whom, because they are unschooled in such basics, the government is, and always will be, all-benevolent. This is consistent with the progressive movement which, from the early years of the 20th century, has advanced on the premise that the government can and should solve every social and economic ill—that whatever the need of the day happens to be, the forces of an all-encompassing government should be retooled to meet it. In 1931 Fascist Italy, Pope Pius XI called this tendency “statolatry,” which literally means “worship of the state.” The idea is to look upon the state, rather than God, as the supreme benefactor.

Adams doesn’t use the same term, but he identifies this same inclination in academia. “In the so-called social sciences,” he tells Zach, “everything is a show. It is always a three-act play directed by progressive thinking. In the first act, man is born innocent. In the second act, man is corrupted by ‘society.’ In the third act, the progressive saves him.”

What has happened, in a century-long sleight of hand lost on most of us, is that the proper functions of politics and religion have been reversed. So today, having marginalized traditional religion, we find ourselves trying to achieve religious ends through political means. Witness Katie, for example, loving her (anonymous little old lady) neighbor via (paid) political activism, as if community organizing at $8/hour really qualifies as loving your neighbor.

But the thirsts of our souls will never be slaked by drinking from the fount of the fed. The state is ill-suited to fill the role of benefactor, and it is wholly incapable of ever being anyone’s savior. It’s no wonder so many activists are angry. They’re serving a false god, and false gods inevitably become cruel masters.

Recovery & Commission

Adams does a masterly job of unraveling the whole progressive ruse for Zach. Certainly, he educates Zach, causing him to reconsider his political views. Along the way, he also supplies him with bulletproof responses to some of the boilerplate invective progressive ideologues are sure to hurl at a defector. But more important, Adams draws the connection between one’s political affiliations and his underlying personal stance toward God, causing Zach to reconsider his commitment to his Maker. And gently, he points Zach back to the teachings of his upbringing.

What you learned in your father’s house might not be as enticing as some of the ideas you encounter in college. Indeed, the truth can sometimes seem like a rigid set of punitive commandments, but in reality, it is nothing less than a gift from God. It is His way of telling you what you really desire so that you can live a life that is worth living.

Helping Zach live a life worth living is the goal. “What I am asking you to do at this point is to take a definite stand on the side of the good, right, and true and against the ugliness that’s so apparent in some of the politics on our campus.” You’re ready for it, Adams seems to say, as Zach prepares to graduate. He has prepared his son in the faith for the fight worth having. I think I sense a gleam in his eye when he tells Zach, “I want you to become a lightning rod for the truth.”

As for me, I’ve learned a thing or two from reading over Dr. Adams’s shoulder. So if you’ll excuse me, I have a letter to write.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2XJcvlG

/by