# articles

title: New Reality Conference Season: Chaos to Clarity
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/19/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/new-reality-conference-season-chaos-to-clarity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our new season of <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/">Reality Student Apologetics Conferences</a> (for middle school through college students) is about to begin in just a few weeks, and we’ll be making six stops: <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/ca/">California</a> (Sept. 24–25), <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/wa/">Washington</a> (Oct. 15–16), <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/mn/">Minnesota</a> (Nov. 12–13), <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/tx/">Texas</a> (Feb. 25–26), <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/pa/">Pennsylvania</a> (Mar. 25–26), and <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/ga/">Georgia</a> (Apr. 22–23).</p>

<p>The theme this year is “Chaos to Clarity,” and as the theme suggests, we’ll be working to bring clarity to a range of confusing and controversial worldview issues—race and identity (<a href="https://www.centerforbiblicalunity.com/about-monique">Monique Duson</a> of the Center for Biblical Unity), homosexuality and sex (<a href="https://www.becketcook.com/bio">Becket Cook</a>, author of <em>A Change of Affection: A Gay Man’s Incredible Story of Redemption</em>), abortion (<a href="https://prolifetraining.com/about-speaker/megan-almon/">Megan Almon</a> of Life Training Institute)—along with some staple apologetics topics (science, design, moral relativism, the problem of evil), and more.</p>

<p>If you’re a student, or you’re a parent of students, or you teach students, bring your friends, or gather those students, and join us! Click on the location nearest you (above) for more information (or see <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/info/">here</a> for answers to some general FAQs).</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rDQ6PzDqGt0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnew-reality-conference-season-chaos-to-clarity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnew-reality-conference-season-chaos-to-clarity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnew-reality-conference-season-chaos-to-clarity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Does Mathematics Work?
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/26/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-does-mathematics-work-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the five-minute film from Reasonable Faith below, William Lane Craig discusses how the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics in describing nature—the very thing that makes science possible—points to the existence of God. The video concludes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It turns out that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics provides powerful evidence for the existence of God. If God exists, then the effectiveness of mathematics is actually something that we should expect. And on atheism, there just isn’t any explanation.</p>

<p>As Albert Einstein famously remarked, “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility…. The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”</p>

<p>If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics to the physical world is truly incomprehensible, yet we find ourselves in a world with a deep mathematical underpinning that defies probability. The effectiveness of mathematics in describing the physical world is literally a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HmKzTLjddmQ" tabindex="0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-does-mathematics-work-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-does-mathematics-work-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-does-mathematics-work-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Evening News
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-evening-news
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I was a kid—before CNN and Fox, before cable and iPhones, before instant 24-7 global coverage of every event—there was a single source of information keeping ordinary folk up-to-date on things they needed to know. It was simply called “The Evening News.”</p>

<p>The half-hour program, broadcast from local hubs or national networks, gave families an overview of current events important to life in their communities. The reporter’s goal was principally to provide accurate information rather than parochial dogma masquerading as even-handed coverage.</p>

<p>In this issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>, I’d like to give you my version of “The Evening News”—accurate information that simply reports what has been happening recently in our communities relevant to a basic theme I’ve been writing about this year. Yes, I have a point to make, but in this case, I think the news speaks for itself.</p>

<p>In my bi-monthly <em>Solid Ground</em> dispatches to you this year, I have been sounding a warning about a trend I’ve been tracking—an ideologically-driven downward trajectory of secular culture that’s rapidly eroding America’s fundamental freedoms in a way we have never encountered before.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://www.str.org/w/iron-curtain-diary" id="" rel="" target="" title="">January</a>, I gave you a glimpse of a tyrannical world nearly half a century ago, where Christians were trapped behind an “Iron Curtain” of oppression under the ruthless hammer and sickle of Soviet domination.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[1]</a></p>

<p>In <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-primal-heresy" rel="" target="" title="">March</a>, I noted that human lives will be ruled by one of two fundamental forces: either truth or power. When our first parents exchanged the external rule of God and the objective truth of his world “out there” for the internal rule of their own desires “in here”—the outside/inside exchange at the heart of all forms of relativism—they plunged humanity into a treacherous struggle between, on the one hand, the truth that brings liberty and, on the other, the powerful forces intent on extinguishing both truth <em>and</em> liberty.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[2]</a></p>

<p>In <a href="https://www.str.org/w/freedom-fading" rel="" target="" title="">May</a>, I showed how that struggle has been manifesting itself in current cultural skirmishes, revealing a disquieting trend towards totalitarianism in America—the place many of us considered to be, irrevocably, “the land of the free.” “In the West today,” one astute and well-informed writer has observed, “we are living under decadent, pre-totalitarian conditions.”<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[3]</a></p>

<p>Presently, we face the encroachment of an unusual species of oppression, a daunting amalgam of hard and soft totalitarianism—“hard” when compliance is enforced from above by government, and “soft” when compliance is dictated by elites in private cultural institutions like the academy, the press, corporations, Hollywood, and the tech moguls running social media. When truth is the casualty in that battle, then citizens are condemned to live by lies.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[4]</a></p>

<p>Finally, in <a href="https://www.str.org/w/critical-race-theory-civil-rights-upside-down" rel="" target="" title="">July</a>, I alerted you to one instance of the truth/power struggle. I compared two ways the injustice of racism has been addressed in this country—the truth-centered Civil Rights Movement of the ’60s led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the more “progressive” power-centered approach known as critical race theory (CRT).<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[5]</a> I concluded that the intolerable evil of racism can only be resolved through truth, not power—the truth of the intrinsic value of each human being made in God’s image and the truth of the moral virtues God intended man to live by.</p>

<p>In my version here of The Evening News, I report a handful of items that verify the trend I have been tracking. I’m convinced, though, that these news tidbits are “iceberg tips” connected to a larger story, a drama that lies behind the headlines, driven by “spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places.” <a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[6]</a></p>

<h2>The Story behind the Stories</h2>

<p>From the beginning, mankind’s rebellion has been a quest for autonomy—self-rule—freedom from God’s rules and God’s ways. On the flanks, the “serpent of old,”<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[7]</a> instigator of the rebellion, orchestrates the larger moves, part of a dark scheme to subvert God’s good world.</p>

<p>His first attack assaults the core, the foundation, replacing God’s external, objective Truth with man’s internal, subjective “truth.” Relativism. A second strike aims at God’s good purpose for man to be fruitful and multiply. The holy union of one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[8]</a> is replaced by a twisted substitute of anything-goes-sex, anything-goes-gender, and anything-goes-marriage.</p>

<p>Through it all, though, the serpent stays in the shadows, mankind unaware of the stranglehold he has on them. Since he “deceives the whole world” (Rev. 12:9) and “has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” (2 Cor. 4:4) who have been “held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:26), now “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 Jn. 5:19).</p>

<p>The captives offer darkness as light, clothing vice in the vocabulary of virtue with words like “tolerance,” “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” “broad-mindedness,” “dialogue,” “justice,” and­—above all—“love.” They use the vocabulary of evil to subvert the good with words like “intolerance,” “bigotry,” “inequity,” “exclusion,” “narrow-mindedness,” “silence,”<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[9]</a> “injustice,” and—above all—“hate.”</p>

<p>The gateways of information falter first—the academy, Hollywood, the media. Education is next, then big business. Finally, the big stick—the law. None falls hard and fast. Instead, each crumbles slowly, most people hardly noticing. The language deceives them. <a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[10]</a></p>

<p>The lies at first are quiet ones, subtle deceptions—not shouted from the rooftops, but rather whispered, gently tickling the ears, a quiet drumbeat of little deceits unnoticed by most. As the power balance shifts, though, the lies get bolder, more aggressive. Rhetoric-laden persuasion replaces inuendo, then coercion replaces persuasion. Dissent is silenced, dissidents punished. Totalitarianism creeps closer.</p>

<p>That is the big story, the trend the news items testify to. And now, “The Evening News.” I’ll start with whispers.</p>

<h2>Quiet Lies</h2>

<p>As I walk down the jetway to board my Delta flight, I’m greeted by picture-posters lining the walls, depicting typical passengers. They include a shot of two gay men cuddling together in their seats, two 20-something gals enjoying a travel fling, an unmarried couple on a junket (no wedding rings), a young woman holding a child (a single mom?), a female Hispanic in combat fatigues, a black woman in construction garb replete with hard hat, a smiling flight attendant, and other individual travelers embarking on business trips or personal adventures—all thoroughly inclusive, except…not a single picture of a family.</p>

<p>On board, I check my personal entertainment monitor. The first viewing choice offered on the display—Delta’s “Spotlight” feature—is Netflix’s “Queer Eye,” with a “billboard photo” depicting five effusively happy gay men. When I survey the 36 selections in Delta’s “New Onboard” category, seven—nearly 20%—focus on gay themes. No loud voices here, just smooth, subtle socializing to a secular view of reality. Quiet lies.</p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>While writing this piece, I mistakenly launch MS Word’s “Smart Lookup” for the word “woke.” A definition appears on my screen: “Alert to injustice and discrimination in society, especially racism.” Odd. No mention of the role “woke” plays as a unique term of art in critical race theory. Only a noble-sounding characterization every biblical Christian could affirm. The antonyms listed, by the way, are “conservative” and “moderate.” Thus, neither conservatives nor moderates qualify—according to the Microsoft crowd—as people alert to injustice, discrimination, or racism.</p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>Facebook now offers a list of 58 gender options for FB users so that “users can now select a ‘custom’ gender option,” including “gender fluid,” “androgynous,” “two-spirit,” “pangender,” and “neutrois.”<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title="">[11]</a></p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>In the Austin public school system, students encounter the “Genderbread Person,” alerting them to the difference between biological sex and gender identity, instructing young readers that gender identity is located “in your head.”<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title="">[12]</a> The sex education curriculum for 6<sup>th</sup> graders in Austin in 2019 stated that “being a boy, girl, or in-between is mostly about how someone feels, not their body parts.”<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title="">[13]</a></p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>Gentle whispers. These whispers, however, soon give way to louder voices.</p>

<h2>Bolder Strokes</h2>

<p>Totalitarianism rides on the rails of different cultural circumstances at different times—Russian Bolsheviks rebelling against tsarist tyranny in 1917, for example, or Germany’s National Socialist Party in the ’30s capitalizing on the public humiliation and economic collapse caused by the Treaty of Versailles.</p>

<p>Currently, the cultural momentum towards totalitarianism is fueled by CRT, gay/gender inclusion and, as it turns out, the COVID-19 crisis. Regardless of your views on the medical status of the coronavirus or the politics of the pandemic, the threat of the virus has shown us how incredibly easy it is for present-day government to significantly eliminate “first freedoms” when citizens are sufficiently frightened.</p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>In “Critical Race Theory, the New Intolerance, and Its Grip on America,” <a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14" title="">[14]</a> the Heritage Foundation reports:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The CRT-influenced trainings that are often seen in America’s workplaces and schools…seek to replace what its practitioners see as a “cultural hegemony” with a “counter-hegemony.” A well-known example of this indoctrination came in 2020 from the National Museum for African American History and Culture, a Smithsonian institution…. The museum ran an “anti-racist” chart that disparaged “hard work” and “cause and effect relationships” and criticized ideas such as “hard work is the key to success,” “work before play,” and “objective, rational linear thinking,” saying these are attributes of “white dominant culture, or whiteness.”<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15" title="">[15]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>A Christian high school principal of a large public school in the Midwest—who is currently flying under the administration’s radar—told me he’s read over 200 articles in his field promoting critical race theory. Not a single one was sympathetic to any contrary view—indeed, they were uniformly hostile—nor did they show the slightest compassion for troubled parents whose children were being systematically propagandized with this doctrine.</p>

<p>The principal also warned that often CRT slips in unnoticed by parents because it’s smuggled into classrooms under the guise of shadow programs using acronyms like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion), and other variations. This tactic enables public schools to instruct unwary students in the core concepts of CRT while simultaneously denying that it’s being taught.</p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, offers a PDF resource<a href="#_edn16" name="_ednref16" title="">[16]</a> counseling educators in how to answer kids’ questions about the meanings of LGBTQ letters. It includes gender-inclusive definitions of phrases like “gender expansive” (“Some people feel that the traditional ways of being a ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ do not fit for them. They live their lives showing that there are many ways to be a girl, boy, both or neither”), “gender identity” (“How you feel. Girl, boy, both or neither”), and “transgender or trans” (“When your gender identity (how you feel) is different than what doctors/midwives assigned to you when you were born (girl/boy or sex assigned at birth)”).</p>

<p>In a category titled “Who You Love,” the resource gives guidance on words like “bisexual” (“People who love people of more than one gender. [In grades 3 – 5, you might say people who love or are attracted to people of more than one gender]”), “sexual orientation” (“Who you love. [In grades 3 – 5, you might say who you love or are attracted to]”), and “pansexual” (“People who love people of any gender. [In grades 3 – 5, you might say people who love or are attracted to people of any gender]”).</p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>Lesbian journalist Katie Herzog<a href="#_edn17" name="_ednref17" title="">[17]</a> laments that medical schools are now denying biological sex.<a href="#_edn18" name="_ednref18" title="">[18]</a> With students “policing teachers,” she writes, “professors are apologizing for saying ‘male’ and ‘female’” because such terminology is considered “transphobic”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>During a recent endocrinology course at a top medical school in the University of California system, a professor stopped mid-lecture to apologize for something he’d said at the beginning of class. “I don’t want you to think that I am in any way trying to imply anything, and if you can summon some generosity to forgive me, I would really appreciate it,” the physician says…. “Again, I’m very sorry for that. It was certainly not my intention to offend anyone. The worst thing that I can do as a human being is be offensive…. <em>I said ‘when a woman is pregnant,’ </em>which implies that only women can get pregnant and I most sincerely apologize to all of you”….</p>

<p>In a lecture on transgender health, an instructor declared: “<em>Biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender are all constructs.</em> These are all constructs that we have created.” [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>Yahoo News reports on a California state law, in effect since January 1, that allows self-proclaimed male transgender inmates to be housed in women’s prisons.<a href="#_edn19" name="_ednref19" title="">[19]</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Women’s Liberation Front accused the state of violating the constitutional rights of incarcerated women by allowing men into their living quarters to “prey on women”.… WLF has received numerous complaints of assaulted, abused, and traumatized women at the hands of male inmates transferred into their prisons, WoLF Legal Director Lauren Adams said…. Women have been sexually abused in the past and must now contend with [anatomically intact] nude men sharing communal showers…. Having to sleep in a cell with a man or shower with them is traumatic, Adams said.</p>
</blockquote>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>For public school educators in Portland, Oregon, even mathematics has come under the influence of CRT in the guise of “a virtual micro-course in math equity instruction” promoted by the Oregon Department of Education:<a href="#_edn20" name="_ednref20" title="">[20]</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>A new debate has emerged over the controversial topic of white supremacy and racism in school math instruction…. The course offering started to garner headlines, as some wondered how a topic like math instruction could be rooted in racism or white supremacy. A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction does offer an 82-page workbook on how teachers can “examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics.” The group claims white supremacy culture can show up in the classroom in various ways, including when “the focus is on getting the ‘right’ answer,” and when “students are required to ‘show their work.’” The group also says educators should try to “center ethnomathematics” by identifying and challenging the ways that “math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>A member of our STR community and distressed officer in the U.S. military recently sent us this note:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>On numerous occasions, we have been briefed, en masse, not just the about language we use, but the tone, and whether we make someone feel offended, ensure inclusivity—any number of the current buzz words and phrases, not only in personal conversations and interactions but with social media posts and even “Likes” [that] can have us reported for causing a service member to feel unwelcome or offended.</p>

<p>It is very disturbing the pace that our military is embracing cultural change in the guise of inclusivity, diversity and equity. It is very disturbing that many of us feel we have to take measures (concerns about anonymity), or we can find ourselves canceled, and a career threatened. We are painfully aware of how the cultural language and feelings can adversely affect our position, command, career, and the ability to provide for our family…. If our boys were of age, we would discourage them from military service, the change is that drastic.<a href="#_edn21" name="_ednref21" title="">[21]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Shouts from the Rooftops</h2>

<p>A clear “tell” of escalating totalitarianism—soft or hard—is the swift silencing of dissent and punishment of dissidents. Sanctions serve as a warning to would-be ideological troublemakers. Critical race theory is currently the most uncompromising example of that pattern,<a href="#_edn22" name="_ednref22" title="">[22]</a> but the gender/gay activists run a close second.</p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>In their <em>Justice News</em>, the DOJ released the text of then Attorney General William Barr’s speech at the University of Notre Dame in 2019. <a href="#_edn23" name="_ednref23" title="">[23]</a> In his address, Barr cited government hostility towards conventional religion, evidenced by its use of LGBT curricula in direct opposition to the spiritual convictions of many parents:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>Maud Maron was a public defender in New York whose CV was thick with politically-correct, culturally-liberal bona fides. Even so, in spite of her spotless professional record, she was forced out of her job as a racist. In “A Witch Trial at the Legal Aid Society,” Bari Weiss records Maron’s saga.<a href="#_edn24" name="_ednref24" title="">[24]</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>“I am very open about what I stand for,” [Maron said]. “I am pro-integration. I am pro-diversity. And also I reject the narrative that white parents are to blame for the failures of our school system. I object to the mayor’s proposal to get rid of specialized admissions tests to schools like Stuyvesant. And I believe that racial essentialism is racist and should not be taught in school.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Those remarks rattled her colleagues, but when Maron published a piece in the <em>New York Post</em> on July 23, 2020 titled “Racial Obsessions Make It Impossible for NYC Schools to Treat Parents, Kids as People,”<a href="#_edn25" name="_ednref25" title="">[25]</a> her words triggered withering condemnation.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I am a mom [she wrote], a public defender, an elected public-school council member and a City Council candidate. But at a city Department of Education anti-bias training, I was instructed to refer to myself as a “white woman”—as if my whole life reduces to my race. Those who oppose this ideology are shunned and humiliated, even as it does nothing to actually improve our broken schools…. The DOE has spent more than $6 million for the training, which defines qualities such as “worship of the written word,” “individualism” and “objectivity” as “white-supremacy culture.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“That’s when things at work blew up,” Weiss writes. “Maron said it was not easy to find a lawyer to take her case: Challenging activists who claim the mantle of antiracism carries tremendous professional risks these days.”</p>

<p>“If you had asked me when I became a mom what I thought were the pressing concerns my kids would face,” Maron now reflects, “I probably would have said climate change, maybe ending the Iraq war. I am so shocked that what I worry about now is <em>creeping totalitarianism in America</em>” (emphasis added).</p>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p><em>Wall Street Journal</em> columnist Abigail Shrier wrote the groundbreaking book <em>Irreversible Damage</em><a href="#_edn26" name="_ednref26" title="">[26]</a> warning parents of the transgender craze that is emotionally wounding and physically disfiguring their daughters. Shrier’s work was named one of the best books of 2021 by <em>The Times of London</em> and <em>The Economist, </em>along with other accolades.</p>

<p>Even so, Shrier received an avalanche of criticism that stimulated an aggressive campaign to ban her book. Under heavy pressure from activists, the American Bookseller’s Association (ABA) issued an apology<a href="#_edn27" name="_ednref27" title="">[27]</a> for promoting the work:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>An anti-trans book was included in our July mailing to members. This is a serious, violent incident that goes against ABA’s ends policies, values, and everything we believe and support. It is inexcusable. We apologize to our trans members and to the trans community for this terrible incident and the pain we caused them. We also apologize to the LGBTQIA+ community at large, and to our bookselling community.</p>
</blockquote>

<p align="center">_____</p>

<p>I have cited Bari Weiss’s articles multiple times in this piece. It’s important to note that Weiss is not a conservative, but a lesbian centrist who was an op-ed staff editor for the <em>New York Times</em>. Her letter of resignation from the <em>NYT</em> is an anguished lament of the fall of the “Gray Lady” from its formerly lofty ideals. It is also confirmation of the trend I have been chronicling: <a href="#_edn28" name="_ednref28" title="">[28]</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>A new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else…. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative. My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist…. I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing.</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>“And Now This…”</h2>

<p>When you see quiet intrusions into your daily life from secular culture promoting narcissistic relativism (e.g., “You do you,” “Have it your way,” “What does your heart tell you?” etc.), take note. When you observe not-so-subtle attempts to undermine God’s purposes for sexuality, marriage, and family, mark it. When you confront divisive ideologies like CRT, be instructed.</p>

<p>Each is part of a larger plan—a broad “scheme” of deception by spiritual forces in heavenly places moving us towards totalitarianism. Much of what we now face in this tsunami of cultural craziness is an outworking of dark designs—undetected by unbelievers—meant to subvert God’s purposes in the world.</p>

<p>If you pay attention, you will see it. The evidence is all around you. It’s all right there in The Evening News.</p>

<p>The Evening News, however, does not have the last word. A Puritan prayer I stumbled upon this morning describes the deeper reality:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>O Lord, I bless thee that the issue of the battle<br>
between thyself and Satan<br>
has never been uncertain,<br>
and will end in victory.</p>

<p>Calvary broke the dragon’s head,<br>
and I contend with a vanquished foe,<br>
who with all his subtlety and strength<br>
has already been overcome.</p>

<p>When I feel the serpent at my heel<br>
may I remember him whose heel was bruised,<br>
but who, when bruised, broke the devil’s head.<a href="#_edn29" name="_ednref29" title="">[29]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[1]</a> “Iron Curtain Diary,” <em>Solid Ground</em>, Jan-Feb 2021, str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[2]</a> “The Primal Heresy,” <em>Solid Ground</em>, Mar-Apr 2021, str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[3]</a> Rod Dreher, <em>Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents</em> (New York City: Sentinel, 2020), 93.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[4]</a> “Freedom Failing,” <em>Solid Ground</em>, May-June 2021, str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[5]</a> “Critical Race Theory—Civil Rights Upside Down,” <em>Solid Ground</em>, July-Aug 2021, str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[6]</a> Ephesians 6:10–12.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[7]</a> Revelation 20:2.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn8">
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[8]</a> A paraphrase of Jesus’ characterization of marriage in Matthew 19:4–6.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn9">
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[9]</a> As in the activist slogan “Silence is violence.”</p>
</div>

<div id="edn10">
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[10]</a> Recall the right-is-wrong, up-is-down “doublethink” slogans of the Party in Orwell’s <em>1984</em>: “War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength.”</p>
</div>

<div id="edn11">
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[11]</a> https://abcnews.go.com./blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn12">
<p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title="">[12]</a> http://www.genderbread.org/resource/genderbread-person-v3-3.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn13">
<p><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title="">[13]</a> As cited in Keith Stranglin, <em>Ethics Beyond Rules</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021), 94.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn14">
<p><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14" title="">[14]</a> Butcher and Gonzalez, “Critical Race Theory, the New Intolerance, and Its Grip on America,” <em>The Heritage Foundation</em>, December 7, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/civil-rights/report/critical-race-theory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn15">
<p><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15" title="">[15]</a> For the original story, see Chacour Koop, “Smithsonian Museum Apologizes for Saying Hard Work, Rational Thought Is ‘White Culture,’” <em>Miami Herald</em>, 7/17/2020, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article244309587.html.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn16">
<p><a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16" title="">[16]</a> “Defining LGBTQ Words for Elementary School Students,” https://welcomingschools.org/resources/definitions-lgbtq-elementary-school.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn17">
<p><a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17" title="">[17]</a> I mention Herzog’s “sexual preference” only to point out that this alarm is not being sounded by a conservative.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn18">
<p><a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18" title="">[18]</a> Katie Herzog, “Med Schools Are Now Denying Biological Sex,” 7/27/21, https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/med-schools-are-now-denying-biological.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn19">
<p><a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19" title="">[19]</a> Tori Richards, “Newsom Needs to Halt Transgender Mixing of Prison Populations, Women Advocates Say,” <em>Yahoo News</em>, 6/29/21, https://news.yahoo.com/newsom-needs-halt-transgender-mixing-201200699.html.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn20">
<p><a href="#_ednref20" name="_edn20" title="">[20]</a> Lincoln Graves, “Debate Emerges over Racism and White Supremacy in Oregon Math Instruction,” KATU, 2/26/21, https://katu.com/news/local/debate-emerges-over-racism-and-white-supremacy-in-math-instruction.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn21">
<p><a href="#_ednref21" name="_edn21" title="">[21]</a> For obvious reasons, he wished to remain anonymous.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn22">
<p><a href="#_ednref22" name="_edn22" title="">[22]</a> The outcry against this abusive dogma is mounting, though. Objectors now include political centrists and even some left of center. For one notable example, see https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/04/17/one-parent-of-new-york-city-indoctrination-school-has-had-enough/.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn23">
<p><a href="#_ednref23" name="_edn23" title="">[23]</a> https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn24">
<p><a href="#_ednref24" name="_edn24" title="">[24]</a> Bari Weiss, “A Witch Trial at the Legal Aid Society,” 7/12/21, https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-witch-trial-at-the-legal-aid-society.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn25">
<p><a href="#_ednref25" name="_edn25" title="">[25]</a> https://nypost.com/2020/07/23/racial-obsessions-make-it-impossible-for-nyc-schools-to-treat-parents-kids-as-people/.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn26">
<p><a href="#_ednref26" name="_edn26" title="">[26]</a> Abigail Shrier, <em>Irreversible Damage—The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters</em> (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2021).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn27">
<p><a href="#_ednref27" name="_edn27" title="">[27]</a> https://twitter.com/ABAbook/status/1415399389615595520.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn28">
<p><a href="#_ednref28" name="_edn28" title="">[28]</a> https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn29">
<p><a href="#_ednref29" name="_edn29" title="">[29]</a> Arthur Bennett, <em>The Valley of Vision—A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions</em> (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1975), 328.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-evening-news" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-evening-news" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-evening-news" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does the Bible Limit Gender to Just Male and Female?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/02/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-the-bible-limit-gender-to-just-male-and-female-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s a trendy new idea that denies God created only two genders (male and female). What’s the proof? Frogs. That’s right. Proponents of this view claim frogs are evidence that the gender binary of the Bible is a myth. If you’re puzzled by this, that’s understandable. Here’s how the argument works.</p>

<p>Defenders of this position point out that in Genesis 1, Scripture says God made creatures that live on the land and creatures that swim in the water. Frogs, however, are amphibians and aren’t exclusively land or water creatures. They don’t fit neatly in either of those creature classifications. So, although Genesis describes the creation of land and water creatures, it does not account for every kind of animal that God made.</p>

<p>In the same way, so the argument goes, even though Scripture says that God made humans “male and female” (Gen. 1:27), those two categories can’t account for every kind of human. God also created non-binary people—those who aren’t either male or female.</p>

<p>Now, there is some truth to what is being said. Many of the binary categories mentioned in the Genesis narrative don’t fully account for everything that’s created. For example, the Bible says God made day and night—allegedly the only two categories during a 24-hour period—but there’s also sunrise, sunset, dusk, and dawn that are neither day nor night.</p>

<p>Notice, however, in those cases (land/sea creatures, night/day), Scripture later references some of the natural variations between these binary extremes. For example, the Bible mentions frogs over a dozen times, acknowledging the existence of animals that are neither land nor sea creatures. Scripture also references dawn and twilight, even though they don’t fit the binary category of day and night.</p>

<p>This, however, is <em>not</em> the case with the binary category of male and female described in Genesis. There is never a later scriptural reference to another kind of human that falls outside the binary male-female gender category. If humans were made that were neither male nor female, why doesn’t Scripture say so? Surely if God created non-binary people, he would consider them more important than frogs and mention them in his Word. But not a single sentence is spent referring to a person that’s in between or outside the male-female binary.</p>

<p>Some might suggest that eunuchs should qualify as non-binary. Remember, though, that eunuchs were men who, according to Jesus, were either born that way, made that way by men, or chose celibacy (Matt. 19:12). Merely being born with a physical anomaly of your sex organ doesn’t disqualify you from being male since your sex is determined by things like your DNA, whether your body produces sperm or eggs, etc. (this can be more complex, but it’s outside the scope of this article). Getting castrated doesn’t make a man any less male than a mastectomy makes a woman less female. Though sex-specific organs are removed in both cases, the changes are cosmetic and don’t alter the core of a person. The Bible does reference such people, but it never uses their existence to challenge the gender binary taught in Genesis.</p>

<p>This whole attempt to force a non-binary interpretation into the Genesis creation account is anachronistic. Advocates of this view start with a modern theory of gender and then strain to impose that thinking on an ancient text. This is a common interpretive error known as eisegesis. It occurs when you start with your own idea and impose that meaning onto a text. The opposite and proper approach, however, is known as exegesis. That’s where you draw out the meaning intended by the author that is found in the text. In other words, let the text speak for itself.</p>

<p>Notice that no person—Jew, Christian, atheist, or other—for the last 3,500 years ever concluded that when God made mankind “male and female,” that meant he also created people who were <em>neither</em> male nor female. Why? Because it’s utterly foreign to the text. This idea does not come from God or Scripture. It comes from people who rebel against God and Scripture (Rom. 1:18–23). It’s a destructive anachronism that attempts to impose an alien meaning on God’s Word.</p>

<p>Finally, it’s worth pointing out that when God destroyed the earth by the flood and “rebooted” humanity, he commanded Noah to preserve his wife, his sons, and his sons’ wives. In addition, he commanded Noah, “You shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female” (Gen. 6:18–19). When God chose to remake the world, he only preserved males and females because those two exhausted the gender categories of both humans and animals. The reason behind this decision seems consistent with the reason found in the initial creation of Genesis: The gender binary was directly tied to procreation. Only a male and female (no more and no less) are needed to be fruitful and multiply.</p>

<p>Nothing I’ve said here, however, negates our duty to love people who identify as non-binary. They are made in God’s image and valuable like every other person. Many of them, though, are confused and desperately need our compassion.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-the-bible-limit-gender-to-just-male-and-female-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-the-bible-limit-gender-to-just-male-and-female-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-the-bible-limit-gender-to-just-male-and-female-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: My First Abortion Debate
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/07/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/my-first-abortion-debate
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Over a decade ago, <a href="https://youtu.be/ixElnytQNGU" rel="noopener" target="_blank">I debated a women's studies professor</a> at California State University in San Marcos on the topic ��Should abortion be illegal?” I didn’t have any experience with an event like that, and I’ve never considered myself quick on my feet (I like to mull over ideas before responding), but I knew committing to the debate would help sharpen my skills.</p>

<p>The format of the debate forced me to distill my best content and present it as quickly and effectively as I could. After all, the entire debate was only 50 minutes since it was sandwiched between classes during a one-hour lunch period (the organizers offered free pizza to draw students to the event). That meant I only had a ten-minute opening statement (as did she) followed by five-minute rebuttals and closing statements. There was also a time for audience questions and answers. The whole event was over in what felt like an instant.</p>

<p>After the debate, I remember feeling like I did well. Watching the video today, however, I had a slightly different assessment. Sure, I did well for my first debate, but there were two areas where I dropped the ball. One, it seems like I struggled to fully understand her position. Part of the challenge was—and I remember thinking this during her opening ten-minute segment—she was all over the place. In addition to addressing abortion, she brought up how pro-lifers are inconsistent because they don’t always care for children dying from starvation, disease, and lack of access to clean water. She brought up war, hunting animals for food, and killing in self-defense. I remember thinking, <em>how do I capture her view in a cohesive way so I can respond?</em> Because I was nervous and not quick on my feet, I decided to give a more generalized rebuttal to her opening statement. It was on topic but not as directed towards her opening remarks as I had hoped.</p>

<p>Two, during the question-and-answer time, the subject of <a href="https://www.str.org/w/taking-the-easy-route-after-rape" rel="noopener" target="_blank">rape</a> came up. Although I gave a logically correct answer, I didn’t take any time to acknowledge the evil of rape or express sympathy and compassion towards a woman who is raped. I’ve drastically changed that approach since then and even call out pro-lifers like myself who make such tone-deaf mistakes.</p>

<p>There are other areas where I could have done better, but overall, I felt like I was able to communicate the points I wanted. If you ever have the chance to review your speaking or writing years later, it’s an illuminating experience. I found it encouraging to see where I’ve grown. Of course, it also makes me wonder what other areas I need to continue to refine and improve.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ixElnytQNGU" tabindex="0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmy-first-abortion-debate" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmy-first-abortion-debate" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmy-first-abortion-debate" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Pro-Lifers Just “Pro-Forced Birth?”
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/14/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-pro-lifers-just-pro-forced-birth-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Words matter.</p>

<p>They’ve been used to rally troops and comfort widows as well as incite violence and intimidate opposition. Words inspire and illuminate, but they also deceive and distort. Words are powerful.</p>

<p>When it comes to <em>moral</em> issues, the stakes are high. Words can be used to either reveal or conceal evil. Someone once said, “When words lose their meaning, people lose their lives.” This dictum is no more obvious than in the abortion debate.</p>

<p>Abortion advocates are brilliant at playing word games. Using clever rhetorical moves, they are able to make protecting preborn children look bad and killing preborn children look good. Here’s an example.</p>

<p>More and more abortion proponents are referring to their opponents as “pro-forced birth” or “forced-birth extremists.” This label is designed to deceive by focusing on two words: <em>force</em> and <em>birth</em>. First, they want you to think pro-lifers are the ones using force. After all, they claim, pro-life people are taking away pregnant women’s freedom by <em>forcing</em> them to carry a child. On this view, pro-choice means pro-freedom and pro-life means pro-force. Second, they want you to think pro-lifers are <em>merely</em> pro-birth. That is, they <em>only</em> care about unborn humans until they’re born. After birth, they don’t matter.</p>

<p><em>The Good Place</em> actress Jameela Jamil employed this rhetoric in a recent Instagram post. <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CTUzGmMF2hg/">She wrote</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Not pro-life. Pro forced birth. That’s the correct terminology for anyone who discards the life, health, mental well-being, survival and freedom of the living… for the unborn. Who they will then equally disregard the human rights of once born.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This post has over 230,000 likes. That means a lot of people are persuaded by this use of language. But it’s all smoke and mirrors. Let me show you.</p>

<h2>Deceptive Terminology Twists Truth</h2>

<p>First, notice how this characterizes pro-life proponents as “forcing” something (i.e. birth) on pregnant women against their will. This is <em>not</em> a coincidence. It’s by design. One cannot help but think of other horrific examples of forcing people to do things against their will. <em>Forcing</em> a woman to have sex against her will. <em>Forcing</em> a man to work for you against his will. <em>Forcing</em> a child away from her family against her will.</p>

<p>When abortion advocates use the words “pro-forced birth,” they want you see a parallel to “pro-forced sex” or “pro-forced slavery.” This deceptive rhetoric tries to manipulate people into calling good evil and evil good. Unfortunately, it seems to be working.</p>

<p>In reality, pro-lifers aren’t <em>forcing</em> women to do something. Rather, they are telling them <em>not</em> to do something (i.e., do <em>not</em> kill another human being). This might be better described as restraining evil by threat of punishment.</p>

<p>We do this all the time, by the way. What pro-lifers are advocating here is nothing more than what ordinary people advocate when they restrict behavior that endangers the lives of other humans. For example, nobody seriously complains about being restricted to 25 miles per hour in a school zone with kids all around. People don’t protest because this restriction <em>protects the lives of innocent children.</em></p>

<p>Calling someone “pro-forced birth” is a lot like calling someone “pro-forced speed limit in a school zone.” Both want to restrict acts that bring harm to innocent humans—whether unborn or born.</p>

<p>So, first, abortion advocates use the language of “force” to twist truth. This rhetoric makes it sound like pro-lifers are the ones doing something wrong—forcibly causing some wicked act against pregnant women. The truth is just the opposite. They are trying to <em>prevent</em> a wicked act—the <em>forced</em> killing of an innocent human being. This leads to my next point.</p>

<h2>Who’s <em>Really</em> Forcing?</h2>

<p>Second, abortion is the “force” option—literally, pro-forced death. Let me explain.</p>

<p>“Pro-forced birth” is an inappropriate way to describe pro-lifers—those trying to <em>prevent</em> the killing of unborn human beings. But it’s also a strange way of characterizing <em>birth</em>. After all, birth is a <em>natural</em> consequence of a <em>natural</em> process. The result of an uninterrupted, healthy pregnancy is childbirth. No external force necessary.</p>

<p>Abortion, on the other hand, is the use of deadly force—an <em>unnatural</em> intrusion of lethal force against an innocent human being into the very space perfectly designed for the baby’s safe, natural development. <em>Forcing</em> a flood of poisonous fluid into a woman’s uterus to chemically burn a baby to death. <em>Forcing</em> a sharp scalpel into the brain of an innocent child and dismembering her in utero, then <em>forcing</em> forceps to remove her body parts piece by piece.</p>

<p>Every elective abortion uses <em>deadly force</em> to kill a human being. Every successful abortion ends with a dead human. Thus, abortion is <em>pro-forced death</em>. And that’s not rhetoric. That’s fact.</p>

<p>Isn’t it interesting, then, how proponents of the “pro-forced death” position try to saddle pro-lifers with the manipulative language of “force”?</p>

<p>However, once we pull back the veil on the rhetorical game that’s being played, we can clearly see what’s really going on.</p>

<h2>Merely “Pro-Birth”?</h2>

<p>One more thing. Some lies are repeated so often, people uncritically accept them as true.</p>

<p>Abortion advocates often describe pro-lifers as <em>only</em> caring about humans before birth but not after. This is demonstrably false. Pro-life people around the world are actively involved in efforts to help the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, build orphanages, fight sex trafficking, and all kinds of other humanitarian work.</p>

<p>And, for the record, there are more nonprofit, pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in this country—funded by the generous financial gifts and unpaid volunteer help of pro-lifers—than there are for-profit, abortion centers—funded by fees gathered from killing unborn humans and from tax dollars.</p>

<p>So, pro-lifers aren’t “pro-force,” and they aren’t merely “pro-birth.” And they certainly aren’t “pro-forced birth.” This is a deceptive language.</p>

<p>When it comes to moral issues, like abortion, we must always be alert for the word games, rhetorical ploys, and manipulative language that distort&nbsp;the truth and make&nbsp;something evil look good.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-just-pro-forced-birth-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-just-pro-forced-birth-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-just-pro-forced-birth-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Will the People in Heaven View Hell?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/15/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-will-the-people-in-heaven-view-hell-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I fairly regularly get asked this question in various forms: How will the people in Heaven view Hell? How can they enjoy the glories of God while others are suffering? My answer has two parts—a direct answer and a crucial context for that answer.</p>

<p>First, we get a sense of the direct answer in Revelation 19:1–6 as part of John’s vision of the end times:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>After [the declaration of judgment against Babylon] I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying,</p>

<p>“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; because His judgments are true and righteous; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.” And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever.” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” And a voice came from the throne, saying,</p>

<p>“Give praise to our God, all you His bond-servants, you who fear Him, the small and the great.” Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying,</p>

<p>“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here is the direct answer: Those in Heaven praise God when they see his judgments against evil. We will praise him for fulfilling his role as <a href="https://www.str.org/w/is-this-really-the-kind-of-judge-you-want-god-to-be-">the perfect judge</a>. I’ve written before that “<a href="https://www.str.org/w/it-s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice">It’s Not Wrong to Long for Justice</a>.” Justice is good. It’s desirable. It causes us to worship. And in the Revelation passage above, we see an example of that. In fact, if you read the psalms while looking for examples of God being praised for his judgments against evil, you might be surprised by how often you run into it. “Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God” when he “inflicts his wrath” against it, according to Romans 3:5.</p>

<p>As I <a href="https://www.str.org/w/it-s-not-wrong-to-long-for-justice">wrote</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our love of justice is a reflection of our love for the perfections of God’s character. He is righteous. He is loving. He is good. In the deepest part of us, we know that everyone who rips away at God’s reflection on earth rightfully deserves condemnation, and we desire the fulfillment of that condemnation. It’s when we recognize that this applies even to <em>our own</em> sins that we become desperate for grace.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And here we come to the context for the direct answer: God’s greatest glory is not his perfect righteousness or his wrath against evil. It’s his grace—the grace Jesus, as “the radiance of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Heb. 1:3), displayed for all to see on the cross. This truth is also revealed in Revelation in a passage that always stops me short in its unexpected and overwhelming beauty.</p>

<p>The passage comes in Revelation 5. Here’s the set up:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it. Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it…. (Rev. 5:1–4)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Remember, when the seals are broken, judgments against the sinful world are released. But who is worthy of bringing about this judgment? John is told, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals” (Rev. 5:5). From reading this response, your first inclination might be to think that Jesus is able to break the seals—he is worthy of doing this—because he’s perfectly sinless, perfectly righteous, that this is what makes him worthy of judging.</p>

<p>But the text does not say this.</p>

<p>In fact, this is the unexpected reason it gives as to why Jesus is worthy to break the seals of judgment against humanity:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. ���You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (Rev. 5:9)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus is worthy of unleashing final judgment not because he’s righteous (though his righteousness made it possible), but <em>because he died for our sins, purchasing people for God with his blood</em>. His loving, self-sacrificial grace on the cross demonstrates the pinnacle of God’s glories, and all of God’s eternal judgment against evil must be seen in light of what Jesus first did for us—his suffering and death for his enemies. Though God’s actions as judge are praiseworthy, this is greater and more praiseworthy than even his actions as judge.</p>

<p>This is the God we worship—the God who is both just and the justifier (Rom. 3:21–26). We see his good justice not only as good in itself, but also in light of his unexpected and beautiful role as justifier. Goodness on top of goodness. Glory on top of glory. And we will rejoice in him forever.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-will-the-people-in-heaven-view-hell-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-will-the-people-in-heaven-view-hell-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-will-the-people-in-heaven-view-hell-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Our Grace and Love Make Us Worthy of Speaking the Truth
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/16/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/our-grace-and-love-make-us-worthy-of-speaking-the-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As a follow-up to <a href="https://www.str.org/w/how-will-the-people-in-heaven-view-hell-">yesterday’s post</a> on what made Jesus worthy to judge the world, I have something to say about how this should change us as apologists. Here’s a reminder of what I said we learn in Revelation 5:9:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus is worthy of unleashing final judgment not because he’s righteous (though his righteousness made it possible), but <em>because he died for our sins, purchasing people for God with his blood</em>. His loving, self-sacrificial grace on the cross demonstrates the pinnacle of God’s glories, and all of God’s eternal judgment against evil must be seen in light of what Jesus first did for us—his suffering and death for his enemies. Though God’s actions as judge are praiseworthy, this is greater and more praiseworthy than even his actions as judge.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As we meditate on this truth, we can’t help but worship Jesus. We also need to consider its implications for us as apologists, letting it change us into people who are more like Jesus, knowing this: As is the case with Jesus, our grace and love towards those who don’t deserve it make us worthy of speaking the truth.</p>

<p>First and foremost, we must represent Christ in the way God considers to be his highest glory—his loving self-sacrifice given to reconcile others to God. It’s only by proceeding in that foundational context that we are then worthy of speaking hard truths to people.</p>

<p>What’s amazing about what we learn in Revelation 5:9—that it’s Jesus’ grace and love, not his righteousness, that is most highly praised as making him worthy to open the seals of judgment—is that we can all imitate this. We might not get very far in imitating his perfect righteousness in this life, but we can all demonstrate aspects of his grace and love—both by being open about our own sin and his grace towards us and by treating others as he treated us. I can’t help but think of Titus 3:1–7 here:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here are practical instructions as to just how we should treat people in light of how Jesus treated us. Here is how we can show Jesus to others in the midst of our apologetics. First, grace, love, and self-sacrifice for those we’re trying to reach, then truth. Note that the choice is not one <em>or</em> the other, nor am I saying we must first demonstrate graciousness for a time <em>before</em> speaking truth. They are both necessary, and they can occur simultaneously. But one is <em>higher</em>. And in whatever we say or do, we need to keep that highest goal of representing the character of Christ in its proper, higher place in our minds and actions.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-grace-and-love-make-us-worthy-of-speaking-the-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-grace-and-love-make-us-worthy-of-speaking-the-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-grace-and-love-make-us-worthy-of-speaking-the-truth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Do Pronouns Matter?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 09/21/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-pronouns-matter-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Do pronouns matter? Yes. It’s not merely a battle over “preferred” pronouns; it’s a battle over reality. What is a pronoun? It’s a word we use to describe the objective nature of reality. He/him and she/her capture the way the world really is—namely, that sex and gender are binary <em>by their very nature</em>. There are men and there are women, there are males and there are females. And this is by <em>design</em>, God’s design for humanity.</p>

<p>That’s why secularists are fighting this one hard. They’re attempting to bend reality to conform to their desires. So, it’s just one more example of humanity’s long legacy of rebellion against their Creator.</p>

<p>But shouldn’t Christians go along to get along? Doesn’t Christian witness require love, and doesn’t love require that we use people’s preferred pronouns? No, and here’s why. If pronouns describe objective reality, and we purposefully use the wrong pronoun to describe a man or a woman, then we’re speaking falsely (without proper justification). We’re bearing false witness to our neighbor. But our moral obligation is to speak the truth, even if our neighbor may take offense. Of course, we should never <em>unnecessarily</em> offend (for example, don’t be an arrogant jerk in these conversations), but we cannot <em>remove</em> the offense that is inherent in the truth.</p>

<p>Indeed, I would argue that living in accordance with our design is <em>absolutely critical</em> to human flourishing. If we go along with the idea that men can become women and women can become men, we are, in fact, encouraging people to go <em>against</em> God’s design and are actually harming their flourishing as God’s image bearers. They will never flourish as God intended by trying to live as the opposite sex. Yes, loving people often requires grace and gentleness and warmth, but it also requires the truth (I’m often reminded of this fact by my wife, who lovingly has to speak the truth to me often, even when I don’t like it!). And by bearing witness to the truth of God’s design, we love people well because we encourage their flourishing.</p>

<p>If someone wants to be called by a certain name, in general, that’s no problem (although, it’s understandable if parents insist on using a given name for their own children). Names are personal preferences. If Robert wants to go by Bobby, or if Jennifer wants to go by Jenny, or if someone prefers a nickname, or even if Ellen wants to go by Elliot, I’m happy to oblige. But I cannot in good conscience call a man a “she” or a woman a “he.” It’s not loving because it’s not true to the reality of God’s design for them. Now, when speaking directly with a transgender individual, for the sake of grace and wisdom, I would not be obnoxious and go out of my way to use pronouns to refer to them in their presence but would simply call them by their preferred name.</p>

<p>Interestingly enough, there are more and more de-transitioners (individuals who attempted to change their sex but who have now transitioned back to their original maleness or femaleness) who are sharing their stories, and some of them are now asking why everyone around them just went along with their desire to change sex instead of challenging them and even warning them of the harm they would do to themselves by attempting to transition. They’re essentially asking, “Why didn’t people love me enough to tell me the truth?” Christians must have the courage to love people well, and that requires both grace <em>and</em> truth.</p>

<p>Not only must we <em>live</em> not by lies, we must also <em>love</em> not by lies.</p>

<p><em>(For more from Brett Kunkle on this topic, listen to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3ZmK-IFDI">this episode of the MAVEN podcast</a>.)</em></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<p><em>Brett Kunkle (<a href="https://twitter.com/BrettKunkle?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@brettkunkle</a>) is the founder and president of <a href="https://www.maventruth.com/">MAVEN</a>, a movement to equip the next generation to know truth, pursue goodness, and create beauty. He has more than 25 years of experience working with youth and parents. Brett has a master’s degree in philosophy of religion and ethics from Talbot School of Theology and co-authored the books </em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Culture-Generation-Navigate/dp/1434711013/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1631912861&amp;sr=8-1">A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World</a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Students-Guide-Culture-John-Stonestreet/dp/0830778772/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2SRZCP58IZB4H&amp;keywords=a+student%27s+guide+to+culture&amp;qid=1631912723&amp;sr=8-1">A Student’s Guide to Culture</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-pronouns-matter-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-pronouns-matter-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-pronouns-matter-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Abortion Parallel to Declining to Donate Your Organs?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/22/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-abortion-parallel-to-declining-to-donate-your-organs-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The recent Texas abortion law has stirred up discussion about the ethics of the pro-life view. As usual, there are numerous posts circulating around the internet that many abortion-choice advocates believe are slam-dunk arguments that no pro-lifer can answer. Here’s one a friend sent to me via Facebook (I’ll summarize the argument since the original post is very long).</p>

<p>The abortion-choice advocate claims a woman is not obligated to sacrifice her bodily autonomy for another being. He goes on to describe a hypothetical scenario. Imagine a situation where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia. No other person on earth is a match to save the child’s life, and the child will die without a bone marrow transplant from you. The government should not be able to demand the use of your bone marrow (or any body part) for something to which you do not consent. The decision whether or not to donate your bone marrow or other organ should be entirely up to you. Then he claims that the “use of a woman’s uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life—it must be offered voluntarily.”</p>

<p>I’ll paste what I wrote in response to my friend below.</p>

<p>This abortion-choice advocate brings up what he believes is an analogous scenario about a person who has the opportunity to donate bone marrow to a dying patient. After describing the analogy, he writes, “Use of a woman’s uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life.” But that’s the question, isn’t it? Is the bone marrow scenario really “no different” than a woman who is pregnant with a child? His argument hinges on whether these situations are morally parallel. While I agree that the government should not obligate a person to donate their bone marrow to another person, I would argue this scenario is not parallel in morally relevant ways to a woman who is pregnant. There are (at least) four ways these two scenarios are morally different.</p>

<p>First, the bone marrow scenario presumes the child is a stranger. The dying anemic person is a total stranger to a woman who is a bone marrow match. We don’t have any obligation towards strangers on earth, especially to perform supererogatory acts (actions that go above and beyond ordinary kindness). However, a child who is gestating inside a woman’s uterus is not a stranger. Rather, this is a woman’s own son or daughter. The analogy, therefore, is faulty because it presumes that a woman has no more obligation to her own child than she does to a complete stranger. Parents have obligations to their own children that they don’t have towards total strangers. The government demands and enforces these obligations, which is why Child Protective Services exists.</p>

<p>Second, in the bone marrow scenario, a woman has not voluntarily engaged in any behavior that places the burden of a stranger’s health in her hands. She has nothing to do with a stranger’s predicament. This burden has been imposed on her against her will. That’s not the case with pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, it is because she has <em>voluntarily</em> engaged in the only act known to get her pregnant: sex. When you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. Granted, rape would be different, but that’s <a href="https://www.str.org/w/taking-the-easy-route-after-rape">a different question altogether</a> and only accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions (according to Planned Parenthood’s own data).</p>

<p>Third, the bone marrow scenario involves refusing to donate body parts to a stranger who has a terminal illness, whereas abortion is the intentional killing of a woman’s own healthy son or daughter. In other words, the former involves passively allowing someone (terminal) to die while the latter (abortion) involves the intentional and physical act of killing through chemical means or physical dismemberment (of a healthy, non-terminal, individual). Just because I have the right to refuse to donate my kidney to a dying patient, that doesn’t mean I have the right to shoot them in the head instead. Allowing to die is not morally equivalent to intentional killing.</p>

<p>Fourth, the bone marrow scenario involves an unnatural use of body parts, whereas pregnancy involves the natural use body parts. The bone marrow inside your body is designed to be used for <em>your</em> body. It produces cells and provides other physiological support for the body it resides in. It was not made to be surgically removed and placed into another person’s body. That’s an artificial or unnatural use. This, however, is not the case with pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, the child growing inside her is in precisely the one place where human beings are designed to gestate: the uterus. That organ is the natural and proper organ to gestate another human being. There is nothing unnatural about it. It’s designed to provide physiological support for <em>another</em> human body, unlike bone marrow, which is designed to provide physiological support for <em>your</em> body.</p>

<p>These are four significant distinctions between the two scenarios that the abortion-choice advocate alleges are parallel. Therefore, the conditions that make it morally permissible to refuse donating your bone marrow are <em>not</em> present in a situation with a pregnant woman refusing her uterus to a child.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-abortion-parallel-to-declining-to-donate-your-organs-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-abortion-parallel-to-declining-to-donate-your-organs-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-abortion-parallel-to-declining-to-donate-your-organs-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Weapon We Need for Spiritual Battle
topic: Christian Living
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 09/23/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-weapon-we-need-for-spiritual-battle
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Beneath the surface of the visible world, a battle rages in an unseen realm. Dark, wicked, supernatural powers seek to rule the world by force. The carnage and the casualties lie all around us.</p>

<p>This isn’t a physical battle, though. It’s spiritual. “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood,” Paul says, but “against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).</p>

<p>In this battle, Satan’s weapons aren’t bombs and bullets. They aren’t his raw power or demon possession, either. His chief weapons are lies and deceptions.</p>

<p>Yes, Satan can harm us physically and often does. We see this in Scripture. Most of the spiritual warfare we encounter, though, is not a <em>power</em> encounter against Satan’s <em>physical attacks</em>. Rather, it’s a <em>truth</em> encounter against his <em>spiritual lies</em>. Therefore, we don’t respond with spiritual chest-pounding but rather with a gracious, sound, and measured proclamation of truth.</p>

<p>Remember who Satan is. Jesus calls him “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). He says there’s no truth in him. He warns us that our battle is against a deadly foe who lies, cheats, and steals.</p>

<p>The devil’s deceptions—Paul calls “schemes” in Ephesians 6:11—are sophisticated strategies he uses to gain a foothold to exert his influence over people.</p>

<p>Satan preys on those not ready for combat, and his plan is working. Currently the culture is in the crushing grip of three of Satan’s cons: moral relativism, religious pluralism, and sexual progressivism.</p>

<p>The results of his schemes are everywhere. For example, many of the commercials during the Olympics this year featured gay, lesbian, and transgender people in relationships—quiet lies of Satan coming into our homes on prime-time television. Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Disney all feature movies depicting similar themes.</p>

<p>Tragically, even our children are targets. In 2017, Disney introduced a lesbian couple in a cartoon feature, “Doc McStuffins.” Last year, I was watching “The Babysitters Club” with my daughters when Netflix introduced a little boy character who believed he was a little girl.</p>

<p>Most recently, “Blues Clues” had a “family pride parade” hosted by a drag-queen. The celebration highlighted families with lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and parents who are non-binary, trans, aceflux, bisexual, and pansexual. The creators even included a cartoon beaver with chest scars from a double mastectomy. Missing from the celebration was a traditional family. All these programs were TV-G, by the way.</p>

<p>The normalization of gay and lesbian parents and transgender children is just one example of the kind of schemes Paul talks about.</p>

<p>So, how do we resist the lies and deceptions of Satan? Paul tells us.</p>

<p>In Ephesians 6, Paul counsels us on how to combat the lies of the enemy that hold the rest of the world captive: “Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm” (Eph. 6:13).</p>

<p>Paul exhorts Christians to “stand firm” in opposition to the enemy. This is important. It’s vital that in our Christian lives we do not compromise our theology or our morality. Now is not the time to bend or bow to cultural pressures.</p>

<p>Paul lists five pieces of armor in this passage, but I want to focus only on the first one. He tells us to fasten the belt of truth around our waists (Eph. 6:14). “Truth” here refers to God’s truth that readies us for battle.</p>

<p>As you and I fasten on the belt of God’s truth, we are strengthened to resist and to counter deception. In another passage, Paul indicates that truth is the weapon that’s “divinely powerful” and capable of destroying “arguments…raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4–5).</p>

<p>The Christian worldview accurately reflects the way the world really is. Yet Satan “has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” (2 Cor. 4:4) who are “held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:26), making it impossible for them to see reality. When we confront the deceptions of the devil with truth, though, God helps us expose the lies.</p>

<p>There is a battle raging. We have a powerful enemy who seeks to devour, but we have a weapon that is more powerful and allows us to fight back—the truth. Armed with the truth of God, we can withstand Satan’s assaults. As ambassadors for Christ, we can stand firm against the devil’s lies in the culture.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-weapon-we-need-for-spiritual-battle" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-weapon-we-need-for-spiritual-battle" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-weapon-we-need-for-spiritual-battle" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Teach What the Bible Says First
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/28/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/teach-what-the-bible-says-first
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a discussion with Shane Rosenthal <a href="https://whitehorseinn.org/resource-library/shows/john-lennox-on-the-story-of-joseph/">on the White Horse Inn</a>, John Lennox talked about how “immensely rich” the stories of Genesis are but also noted that in order to profit from those riches, we need to look at the stories in context, in light of the larger flow of thought in Genesis and the Bible as a whole:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>ROSENTHAL: Do you think part of the problem [of people missing out on the riches in these stories] is that we do look for the practical “How does this apply to me?” rather than tracing those threads…all the way through to the end in which those themes are ultimately resolved in the person and work of Christ?</p>

<p>LENNOX: I Think that’s one of the problems. The word “practical”—what exactly does it mean? What I have experienced and seen many, many times is, the more time you spend trying to understand what it<em> says</em>, the easier it will be to see what it <em>means</em>. And if you see the thought flow—the way the stories are built up—rather than just seeing them as individual stories (which you must do, as well), then you begin to get inside the story, and you can sense what it’s about. And therefore, if you tell the story well and accurately, people can see the application. They don’t have to be told it; they see it.</p>

<p>And I like to try, at least, to generate that “aha” effect—“Oh, so that’s what it’s about! That’s what it’s saying!” And they don’t have to shuffle around, looking for an application. It’s there.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you’re a pastor, or you’re teaching a Bible study, or you’re simply reading the Bible on your own, be careful not to move too quickly to application. Teach what the Bible <em>says</em> first; show us how the text reveals God to us (particularly through Christ), then the applications will follow. (Greg and I discussed tips on how you can steer your Bible study conversation towards context before application <a href="https://www.str.org/w/-strask-what-do-you-wish-you-had-known-about-apologetics-work-%C2%A0">here</a>.)</p>

<p>Remember that the Bible is primarily there to show us who God is and what Christ has done for us, giving us a 2,000-year history of his works, revealing his character, our purpose and need, and his solution. Sometimes, people who are teaching the Bible try much too hard to be brilliant, giving us their own insights into life rather than letting the brilliance of the Bible speak for itself. Let the Bible speak! I would rather hear one halting, inexperienced speaker show me God in a text of the Bible than hear 1,000 polished pastors give me their three-point, alliterated instructions for life, which are often only loosely based on the actual text.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteach-what-the-bible-says-first" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteach-what-the-bible-says-first" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fteach-what-the-bible-says-first" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Escaping the Clever “Kafka Trap”
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/01/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/escaping-the-clever-kafka-trap
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The secular world clearly controls the language game. Be careful you’re not taken in by it. Let me show you what I mean.</p>

<p>Since critical race theory is the latest worldview counterfeit (see <a href="https://www.str.org/w/critical-race-theory-civil-rights-upside-down">July’s <em>Solid Ground</em></a>), consider this example of linguistic arm-twisting. Someone says, “If you say you’re <em>not</em> a racist, that just proves you <em>are</em> a racist.” How would you answer?</p>

<p>I suspect you already see the verbal sleight of hand—the ham-handed attempt at rhetorical manipulation. If you admit you’re a racist, you’re a racist. If you deny you’re a racist, you’re a racist. Racist if you do; racist if you don’t.</p>

<p>Even though the nonsense is obvious, the charge still catches good people off guard. What now? I have a tactical response to this challenge that I’ll share with you in a moment, but first let me show you what’s going on.</p>

<p>Nearly 75 years ago, George Orwell wrote <em>1984</em>, a dystopian novel about a totalitarian world of mass surveillance and iron-fisted political/cultural suppression. The despotism was abetted in part by “Newspeak,” a clever manipulation of language that Big Brother employed to obscure truth and make it almost impossible to think clearly about any issue opposing the Party.</p>

<p>Orwell’s work was prophetic, though the world he warned of didn’t begin to materialize in liberal democracies like ours until decades later than he predicted. The practice of manipulating language to confuse or even silence opposition, used so effectively in Orwell’s time by Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, is now standard fare. Our own culture’s version of Newspeak is abetting the creeping totalitarianism that Orwell feared.</p>

<p>The “You’re a racist either way” charge (called a “Kafka trap”) is just one current example of the kind of nonsense used by our own culture’s thought police to cloud our minds and confuse us. Racism exists, of course, but claiming all whites are racist because they’re white simply trivializes genuine racial bigotry.</p>

<p>So what about our challenge, that denying you’re a racist (or a bigot, or a homophobe, or a transphobe, etc.) just proves you actually are one?</p>

<p>First, do not attempt to banter with such a person. Since it’s patently ridiculous that thinking you’re <em>not</em> a racist proves that you <em>are</em>, it’s obvious to me that no one who seriously offers this confused challenge can be reasoned with.</p>

<p>Saying so would be impolitic, though, so instead, try to slip in under the radar and catch him by surprise using the “Taking the Roof Off” tactic. Simply accept his approach, then turn the Kafka trap back on him. Effective counterexamples abound:</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">“I knew you’d say that, and I’m glad you did.” “What! Why?” “Because it proves you’re wrong.” “Huh?” “No one says that unless they’re mistaken. Don’t you see it?” “No.” “That’s even <em>more</em> proof you’re wrong. Sorry.”</p>

<p>Or…</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">“Do you think <em>all </em>whites are racist?” “Yes.” “That proves <em>none</em> are racist.” “Why?” “It’s obvious. If you disagree, it’s even more evidence no one’s racist.”</p>

<p>Or…</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">“Do you know what ‘social justice’ means?” “Of course I do.” “That proves you don’t. No one who really understands social justice thinks he understands it.”</p>

<p>Like I said, nonsense. If your friend doesn’t get it when you use this tactic, don’t waste time trying to enlighten him. Just let it go. He’s confused, not you.</p>

<p>Here’s my point. Be alert for the linguistic baloney, and don’t be taken in by it. If it sounds silly, it probably is.</p>

<p>The Christian doesn’t need verbal ruses like this, of course, because when someone has a sound, defensible idea, he doesn’t need semantic tricks to make his case. A straightforward appeal to the evidence is all that clear thinking requires.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fescaping-the-clever-kafka-trap" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fescaping-the-clever-kafka-trap" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fescaping-the-clever-kafka-trap" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Biology’s Divorce from Teleology
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/05/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/biologys-divorce-from-teleology
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Can you tell the difference between the following two sentences?</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">The heart is pumping blood.</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">The heart is made to pump blood.</p>

<p>They sound similar, but they are worlds apart. The first sentence is <em>descriptive</em>. It’s how an observer might describe what the heart is doing. The second sentence is <em>prescriptive</em> and presupposes the heart is <em>designed</em> to do something—pump blood.</p>

<p>The medical community has historically presupposed all human organs were designed to perform a function. The study of design is called teleology. The heart is designed to pump blood, the eye is made to see, and muscles are meant to move joints. Every part of the body is intended to do something in particular.</p>

<p>Proper medical care entails recognizing the teleology of human anatomy. Doctors are trained to assess the heart’s function. When it fails to operate in the way it was intended (pump blood or pump it efficiently), they recognize its disease state and provide treatment to return it to its optimal function. Notice the language: intended, disease, function. All these words presuppose that body parts have a prescribed function.</p>

<p>Teleology has a second implication. If body parts have an intended function, then using them in a way that violates their design can cause damage. For example, there are multiple orifices (openings) in the human head: the nose, mouth, and ear. Each orifice is engineered a certain way. The nose is made to draw in air. The mouth can accommodate air, food, and fluids. The ear is only able to receive sound waves. The orifices are not interchangeable. If you were to use the ear in a way it was not designed to function, you would cause damage. Putting french fries in your mouth is fine, but jamming them in your ears can damage your ear drum.</p>

<p>Though thinking this way seems like common sense, culture is changing, and even doctors are abandoning this view. A professor of psychiatry recently told me that the medical school where he teaches in California is abandoning teleological language. They no longer describe human organs as being designed to perform a specific function. Rather, organs simply do certain things. The heart, for example, is not designed to pump blood. Rather, it happens to pump blood. If it only pumps blood half as efficiently in your body as the heart in someone else’s body, you may not desire that. Though a doctor can help you change how well it ejects blood from its chambers, the goal is not to restore the heart’s function to its intended design.</p>

<p>Of course, abandoning teleological language makes sense in a society that is jettisoning the Christian worldview. The only way to have designed organs that function a certain way is to have a Designer who engineered them. Once you abandon the Designer in favor of an undirected process like evolution, then organs lose their teleology. They may have evolved to do certain things, but they were never intended to do so. Hearts currently pump blood in most humans, but no one ever intended to create one to fulfill that function.</p>

<p>The implications of this shift are legion. Throughout the history of human medicine, it was understood that if you used an organ in way that violated its function, you were abusing that body part. Men who had “sex” with men, or women who had “sex” with women, were viewed as violating the intended purpose of their sex organs. Psychologists diagnosed a desire that drove a person to engage in such actions as a disorder.</p>

<p>But with the rise of secular thinking and the abandoning of teleological descriptions of human anatomy, such assessments were deemed outmoded. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted (not based on new medical data) that homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder. That makes sense if you don’t believe organs have an intended design.</p>

<p>A similar shift has occurred with biological sex. It’s been understood in the past that people with XY chromosomes are male and those with XX chromosomes are female. An increasing number of people today, however, believe that because chromosomal variations like XXY, XYY, and XXX can occur, the sexual binary (only two sexes exist—male and female) is a fiction. If you reject the teleological nature of humanity, then it’s easy to see why variations from the norm are seen not as disordered, but as equal and valid expressions of a different sex.*</p>

<p>This is the new world we live in. By abandoning the Christian worldview—and a Designer who designed all things—we’re left with a world bereft of teleology. Things just are, and they aren’t supposed to be a certain way. It’s a perfect backdrop to bully people who hold to what society says are archaic standards of sexuality. I don’t mean to imply we should play the role of a victim, however. Rather, we ought to play the role of a prophet by calling our culture to adopt a view of reality that makes sense. Abandoning teleological language won’t only lead to a culture permissive of an anything-goes ideology, but it will also prevent people from recognizing the Designer behind what is made, the evidence that <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+1%3A19-20&amp;version=NASB1995">Romans 1:19–20</a> so eloquently asserted can be clearly seen.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<p>* People who have a chromosomal makeup that is different from XX and XY are still made in God’s image, equally valuable to every other person on the planet, and precious in God’s eyes.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbiologys-divorce-from-teleology" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbiologys-divorce-from-teleology" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbiologys-divorce-from-teleology" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are the Unborn a Convenient Group to Advocate For?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/12/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-the-unborn-a-convenient-group-to-advocate-for-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Debate over abortion laws is heating up. Consequently, I’ve been asked by friends and acquaintances to address numerous claims made about the subject. Another <a href="https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/10156549406811031">recently-circulating challenge to the pro-life view</a> left a friend of mine wondering how to respond. Here it is:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.</p>

<p>Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.&nbsp; — Pastor Dave Barnhart</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don’t know anything about this pastor, but that is irrelevant. There are multiple problems with this challenge, but I will only address three of them here.</p>

<p><strong>First, the challenge makes all kinds of ungracious assumptions.</strong> For example, it claims that pro-life Christians choose to care for the unborn so we can “claim to love Jesus,” but we “actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans?” That’s an incredibly uncharitable take on pro-lifers and wrongly assumes their focus on the killing of innocent human beings is misguided. How can he know who people like or dislike? In my near-twenty years of traveling the country and working with pro-life ministries, I’ve never come across pro-life people who dislike orphans, widows, etc. In fact, I experience the opposite. Pro-life people typically have a robust understanding that God made <em>all</em> human beings valuable and that we’re to care for those who are vulnerable. I see their compassion for the unborn pour over into compassion for others who are marginalized.</p>

<p><strong>Second, the challenge wrongly accuses pro-life Christians of throwing prisoners, immigrants, widows, etc. “under the bus for the unborn.”</strong> Even if it were true that pro-life groups didn’t spend their resources caring for prisoners, so what? Why is that a problem? Not every Christian is called to do everything for everyone. Ministries typically focus on specific areas of need, but they shouldn’t be faulted for failing to address <em>every</em> need of <em>every </em>person.</p>

<p>I know ministries that help women and children who are trafficked. They don’t do anything about abortion, though, and they seem deaf to the pleas of prisoners. That’s not wrong. It’s just not their focus. I know men who serve in prison ministry but do nothing to serve those who are sick. We shouldn’t fault them either. They’re doing what they can in their sphere of influence. If pro-life groups only care for the unborn and their mothers, they should not be faulted for doing so. That’s a valid ministry regardless of whether they don’t or can’t help others.</p>

<p><strong>Third, the challenge’s overall claim is arguably false.</strong> He claims the unborn are convenient to advocate for because they never make demands of us, but that prisoners, immigrants, and the sick challenge our wealth, power, and privilege, making it inconvenient for people to care for them. It seems like serving anyone can be inconvenient, though. Putting others’ interests and desires above your own is precisely why it’s called “serving.” You make sacrifices of time, money, energy, and many other things in order to care for those in need. The set of inconveniences will be unique depending on whom you serve.</p>

<p>For example, this pastor claims it’s convenient to <em>advocate </em>for the unborn. In reality, however, it’s convenient to <em>ignore </em>the unborn. Why? The unborn are silent. They can��t pester you. You can’t hear their screams when they’re torn apart. It’s easy to ignore them since you almost never see them. If you looked away from their plight, you’d&nbsp;never be troubled by them.</p>

<p>To advocate for the unborn is complex and difficult. These children are residing inside their mothers, who have total control over their destiny. Convincing women to make decisions about what they believe to be their own bodies is hardly easy. The media, law, courts, schools, and Hollywood are largely supportive of a woman’s right to kill her unborn child. Pro-lifers are routinely mocked, harassed, and deplatformed. It’s inconvenient. This isn’t a complaint. It’s simply a correction to the original challenge. Though advocating for the life of the unborn may not present with the same kinds of inconveniences as caring for prisoners, widows, and orphans, it’s still not convenient and no less legitimate of a ministry.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-the-unborn-a-convenient-group-to-advocate-for-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-the-unborn-a-convenient-group-to-advocate-for-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-the-unborn-a-convenient-group-to-advocate-for-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When It Comes to Homosexuality, the Bible Addresses Behavior
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/20/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-it-comes-to-homosexuality-the-bible-addresses-behavior
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s frustrating to read some advocates of <a href="https://www.str.org/w/pro-gay-theology-invents-a-new-sin">pro-gay theology</a>. They aren’t precise with their words and often conflate categories. The result is, they <a href="https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/">attack a straw man</a>.</p>

<p>For example, pro-gay theology advocates complain that people who uphold the biblical view of sexuality are “condemning LGBTQ people,” or they claim we argue that “being gay is a sin” or that “God abhors the LGBTQ community for who they are.”</p>

<p>This is misleading. Scripture doesn’t use that language. There’s no “being gay” or “being straight.” There’s no “LGBTQ people” and “heterosexual people.” These are modern-day terms and foreign to the biblical text.</p>

<p>By using these phrases, advocates of pro-gay theology advance a caricature of the biblical view. Consequently, this caricature is easy to dismiss. All they have to say is something akin to, “Nowhere does the Bible condemn people for being gay or LGBTQ.” Of course it doesn’t. Again, the Bible doesn’t use those terms.</p>

<p>When it comes to sexuality, the Bible usually addresses <em>behavior.</em> Some behaviors are permitted, and some are prohibited. It’s very straightforward. There is <a href="https://www.str.org/w/marriage-doctrine-alone-disqualifies-pro-gay-theology">only one kind of sexual behavior that’s permitted</a>: sex between a man and a woman who are married (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+1%3A27-28&amp;version=NASB1995">Gen. 1:27–28</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+19%3A4-6&amp;version=NASB1995">Matt. 19:4–6</a>). Every other type of sexual activity (e.g., fornication, adultery, homosexual sex, incest, bestiality) is prohibited.</p>

<p>Furthermore, when you read passages that address the specific topic of homosexuality, notice they address a particular behavior. For example, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev+18%3A22&amp;version=NASB1995">Lev. 18:22</a>). Lying with someone is a behavior. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev+20%3A13&amp;version=NASB1995">Leviticus 20:13</a> is almost identical and, therefore, also refers to behavior. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+1%3A26-27&amp;version=NASB1995">Romans 1:26–27</a> is another example where the passage refers to men (and women) who committed acts: “Men abandoned the natural function of the woman…men with men committing indecent acts.” Finally, in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+6%3A9&amp;version=NASB1995">1 Corinthians 6:9</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+tim+1%3A10&amp;version=NASB1995\">1 Timothy 1:10</a>, Paul uses the Greek term <em>arsenokoitai</em>, <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-claim-about-homosexuality-in-the-film-1946-is-irrelevant">a term that literally means men who bed males</a>. That’s a reference to behavior as well.</p>

<p>These biblical prohibitions naturally have implications for people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. If they engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex, then they are violating the Bible’s proscriptions. They can’t circumvent Scripture’s requirements with a linguistic sleight of hand by claiming that “the Bible doesn’t condemn people for being LGBTQ.”</p>

<p>So, when you hear or see this type of language being used, try to avoid going along with the discussion on those terms. It’s unreasonable to expect Scripture to use 21st-century categories. But also remember, what the Bible <em>does</em> say still speaks directly about the behaviors of many people who identify as gay, lesbian, and bisexual.</p>

<p>Of course, the Bible is full of other prohibitions, so I’m not suggesting Scripture is only directed at a certain set of people. It is relevant to every one of us <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+tim+3%3A16&amp;version=NASB1995">(2 Tim. 3:16</a>) because we all have a proclivity towards sin.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-it-comes-to-homosexuality-the-bible-addresses-behavior" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-it-comes-to-homosexuality-the-bible-addresses-behavior" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-it-comes-to-homosexuality-the-bible-addresses-behavior" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Have a Conversation
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/26/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-have-a-conversation
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a series for the Colson Center’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA7Gikp1j0uAIrcEJDTriyQ/videos">“What Would You Say?” videos</a>, Greg summarizes some of his <a href="https://store.str.org/purchase/tactics-10th-anniversary-edition">“Tactics” material</a>, giving specific, practical steps for having good conversations with people about their beliefs, values, worldview, religion, etc.</p>

<p>In the four-minute videos below, he covers “Basic Principles,” “Engaging Controversial Topics,” “When Under Pressure,” and “Weak Arguments.” Enjoy! And if you’re interested in seeing more videos on this topic, check out the <a href="https://subsplash.com/strquickreference/media/ms/+a6fe807">Quick-Reference App videos</a>, the <a href="https://training.str.org/">STR U course</a>, and the <a href="https://store.str.org/purchase/tactics-video-study-updated-and-expanded">video study</a>.</p>

<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eB5marXdBlk" tabindex="0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sJSG6BOWiEI" tabindex="0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NhyMclem04A" tabindex="0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7gzdyvAXsrI" tabindex="0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-have-a-conversation" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-have-a-conversation" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-have-a-conversation" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Legend of the Social Justice Jesus
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-legend-of-the-social-justice-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want to tell you a story of an ancient sage who changed the world.</p>

<p>This wise man fought for justice, championing the cause of the poor and the oppressed. He rejected organized religion, showing tolerance—not judgment—for the outcast and the socially marginalized. He promoted universal love and the brotherhood of man. His unflinching commitment to speak truth to power cost him his life, but his legacy lives on. He is a model for us today of love, acceptance, and inclusion. His name is Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>That is the story, in sum. It’s a noble tale, to be sure. But it’s a falsehood, a fiction, an urban legend. Though the story is parroted like a mantra by multitudes—even echoed reflexively by otherwise sound spiritual leaders who ought to know better—no such Jesus ever existed. Rather, taken as a whole, this version of Jesus is just another example of another Jesus bringing another gospel like the ones the apostle Paul anathematized to the Galatians.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[1]</a></p>

<h2>A Myriad of Myths</h2>

<p>This is not the first legend about Jesus, of course. Paul chastised the Corinthians—somewhat sarcastically—for their own cavalier embrace of teachers fabricating a false Christ generated by a false spirit bringing a false gospel:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. (2 Cor. 11:4)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Corinthians were being led astray by the serpent’s crafty deceptions, Paul said, just as Eve was (v. 3)—abandoning simple devotion to the genuine Jesus for an alluring invention, an alternate Christ.</p>

<p>The trend would continue in the future, Paul warned, with the church turning their ticklish ears from truth to myths—legends—choosing man-made fictions over doctrinal facts (2 Tim. 4: 3–4). Jesus himself warned of future interlopers, imposters masquerading as messiahs who would mislead many (Matt. 24:24).</p>

<p>Times have changed, but the trend has not. New “Jesus legends” abound: the legend of Jesus, the (mere) itinerant moral teacher; the legend of Jesus, the prophet of Allah; the socialist Jesus legend; the legend of the Gnostic Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas; the legend of Jesus, the universal Christ; the LDS legend of Jesus, the spirit brother of Lucifer; the New Age Jesus-the-Hindu-guru legend. Et cetera, et cetera.</p>

<p>The remaking of the Jewish Messiah from Nazareth into a progressive advocate of social justice is just the latest example of the tendency people have to fashion Christ in their own social/spiritual/political image.</p>

<p>Of course, in one sense that shouldn’t surprise us. Most folks have a genuine respect for Jesus—as they should. It’s understandable, then, that on weighty matters they’d want Jesus on their side.</p>

<p>Here the tail wags the dog, though. The point is not for any of us to get Jesus on <em>our</em> side, but for us to get on <em>Jesus’</em> side—hands to the plow, not looking back, fit for the kingdom.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[2]</a></p>

<p>What precisely <em>is</em> “Jesus’ side,” though? Given the mishmash of myths, how do we separate wheat from chaff, fact from fiction, legend from history? We cannot follow Jesus if we do not have a clear idea of who the real flesh and blood Jesus of history was and which direction he was heading. But how do we know with any confidence?</p>

<h2>Searching for Jesus</h2>

<p>There is a reliable, uncomplicated method I employ to get an accurate, balanced, big-picture take on any topic in any section of Scripture, and it’s perfectly suited for this task.</p>

<p>Say, for example, I want to know everything about how God supernaturally guided the early church, or what Proverbs teaches on leadership, or what the New Testament instructs on prayer, or how the disciples of Jesus preached the gospel in the book of Acts, etc.<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[3]</a> I simply read every word of the biblical material I’m interested in, isolate every passage that’s germane to my topic, then collate the passages in an orderly way to create a thorough, complete, precise portrayal of the topic. It’s a simple—if labor-intensive—technique anyone can use to get the full counsel of any section of Scripture on any topic.</p>

<p>This approach might be problematic for some, though—particularly the more progressive types who favor the social justice Jesus version. They simply do not trust the record. To many of them, Scripture is not an authoritative account of what God revealed to man, but simply one version of what certain ancient people believed about God. The Gospels are humanly “inspired,“ not divinely inspired—man-made, not God-breathed.</p>

<p>No matter. That distinction makes absolutely no difference to my assessment. Here’s why. Nothing about my case has anything to do with whether or not the Bible is divinely inspired. Though that is my view, it’s a separate issue for now.</p>

<p>Here’s the real issue. We have one body of detailed information about Jesus: the canonical Gospels. We can accept them as divinely inspired or not. We can accept them (as many scholars do) as non-inspired human documents that are, on the main, historically accurate. We can even accept them as error-ridden musings by primitive people about God and Jesus. What we cannot do, though, is reject the Gospel accounts out of hand and then advance our own personal opinion of the Jesus of the Gospels, since there will be no Jesus left to have a personal opinion about.</p>

<p>Reject the record, and you forfeit your opinion of the man of the record. It’s that simple. Of course, if you cherry-pick verses to fashion a Jesus in your own image, then I have nothing to offer you. If that’s your project, you are welcome to your fantasy, but do not mistake the views of your make-me-up Christ for the views of Jesus of Nazareth. That legend will reflect your opinions, not his.</p>

<h2>Jesus and “Social Justice”</h2>

<p>Our question here is simple: What did Jesus come to do? Preach a socialistic redistribution of wealth? Introduce New Age Hinduism to Torah-observant Jews? Prophesy for Allah? Teach us how to attain personal godhood or accomplish Christ consciousness? Advocate for the poor, the marginal, and the disenfranchised in a campaign for social justice? Let’s see.</p>

<p>To separate the real Jesus from legendary christs of any sort, I simply employed my system. I carefully read every line of every Gospel and isolated every passage that spoke of Jesus’ purpose—references either from Jesus himself, from clues in the birth narratives, or from statements from Jesus’ forerunner, John the Baptist. I also isolated every reference to the poor.</p>

<p>My search regarding the poor revealed something surprising, considering the breadth of the record. It turns out that Jesus almost never spoke of the poor. He made only ten specific references to “poor” of different sorts,<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[4]</a> not counting parallel passages. Even this small number overstates the issue because of an interesting pattern my search revealed, one I have noted elsewhere:<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[5]</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the vast majority of cases where Jesus mentions the poor, he does so not to commend the poor as such, but to make a point about something else—hypocrisy, a widow’s generosity, Zacchaeus’s repentance, the rich young ruler’s confusion, or a lesson about the afterlife.<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[6]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus <em>did</em> care about the financially destitute, of course, and enjoined charity and compassion for them through kindness and voluntary giving to the disadvantaged (Lk. 12:33, 14:13–14), a point John the Baptist emphasized as well (Lk. 3:11). Campaigning <em>for</em> the poor, however, was not part of his project.</p>

<p>In one case, Jesus actually was dismissive of the poor <em>when compared to something else that was his greater concern</em>: “For you always have the poor with you; <em>but you do not always have Me</em>” (Matt. 26:11, cf. Mk. 14:5–9, Jn. 12:8).<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[7]</a></p>

<p>What was it about Jesus himself that defined his mission in a way that completely eclipsed a legitimate and appropriate concern for the financially destitute? Jesus’ three remaining references to the poor answer that question.</p>

<p>In only two instances did Jesus identify anything about his mission with those people he considered “poor.” When preaching on the Sabbath at the synagogue in Nazareth he said:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. (Lk. 4:18–19)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When John the Baptist sent word from prison questioning in his dark moments whether or not Jesus was indeed “the Expected One,” Jesus responded to his doubts by reporting the fulfillment of his earlier claim:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. (Matt. 11:4–5, cf. Lk. 7:22)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note two important things about the poor and oppressed from these passages. First, it is clear in both references that foundational to Jesus’ ministry of mercy—giving sight to the blind, healing the lame, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead—was preaching the gospel to the “poor.”</p>

<p>Second, Jesus’ sermon on that Sabbath in Nazareth is the only place he makes mention of concern for the “oppressed.” Peter, however, gives us insight into the kind of oppression Jesus had in mind:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who are <em>oppressed by the devil</em>, for God was with him.… Of him all the prophets bear witness that through his name everyone who believes in him receives <em>forgiveness of sins</em>. (Acts 10:38, 43)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Taken together, these passages about the poor paint a clear picture of Jesus’ intent. The poor were to receive the gospel, have their sins forgiven, and be released from the devil’s power—that last point underscored by Jesus’ consistent practice of freeing people from demon possession.</p>

<p>What kind of “poor” would receive this gospel message of forgiveness and thus be freed from the oppression of the devil? Not the proud, pharisaical self-righteous, but rather those who understood their spiritual poverty—which is precisely the point Jesus makes in his sole remaining reference to the poor: “Blessed are the poor <em>in spirit</em>, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3, cf. Lk. 6:20).</p>

<p>Clearly, contending for the financially destitute as such was not his concern, nor was campaigning on behalf of the marginalized, the disenfranchised, or the socially oppressed.</p>

<p>Jesus’ central concern was bringing forth a kingdom in a way that secured liberty for the captives<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[8]</a> through forgiveness of sin—a fact that every one of my remaining Gospel passages about Jesus’ mission makes manifestly clear.</p>

<p>On this point, I will simply let the record speak for itself.</p>

<h2>In the Beginning</h2>

<p>From the outset, the Gospels paint a clear picture of Christ’s purpose. The earliest reference comes from the prophet Micah:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. (Matt. 2:6, cf. Micah 5:2)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Zacharias weighs in next when he prophesies at the birth of his son, John the Baptist:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare his ways; to give to his people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, with which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, to shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Lk. 1:76–79)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel told Mary not to be afraid, since she had found favor with God and would be given a matchless gift:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end. (Lk. 1:31–33)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Joseph, grieved and alarmed by the strange turn of events he faced, received counsel from an angel of the Lord in a dream. The angel said:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son; and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. (Matt. 1:20–21)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At Jesus’ birth, an angel appeared suddenly before shepherds in the field, saying, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk. 2:10–11).</p>

<p>When Mary and Joseph brought the infant Jesus to the temple soon after his birth, they encountered a righteous and devout man named Simeon and a prophetess named Anna who served continuously in the temple with fastings and prayers.</p>

<p>When Simeon took the infant Jesus into his arms, he said, “Now Lord, you are releasing your bond-servant to depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation” (Luke 2:26, 28–30).</p>

<p>Anna spoke next: “At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Lk. 2:38).</p>

<p>At the outset of Jesus’ public ministry, the forerunner John the Baptist fulfills his father’s prophecy by giving “the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.” He points to Jesus and says: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). He also says that this Jesus would baptize with the Spirit and with fire, with salvation or with judgment (Matt. 3:10–12).</p>

<p>In these initial Gospel passages, a precise profile emerges.</p>

<p>A savior named Jesus, who is Christ the Lord, the Son of the Most High God, will be born in Bethlehem to shepherd Israel. As the sacrificial Lamb of God, he will bring salvation and redemption through the forgiveness of sins, baptizing some with the Holy Spirit and others with the fire of judgment. He will be given the throne of His father David and rule over an everlasting kingdom.</p>

<p>Something seems to be missing here, though. There is nothing in these descriptions of Jesus by any of his various forerunners that suggests a single element of the social justice Jesus described earlier. As it turns out, there is nothing like that in Jesus’ own claims about himself, either.</p>

<h2>Jesus on Jesus</h2>

<p>Jesus had much to say about his own mission. He said he came to preach the good news of the kingdom of God (Lk. 4:43). He made clear, though, that his kingdom was not of this world (Jn. 18:36), at least initially. It was not a physical kingdom bringing social justice, wealth redistribution, or political and cultural equity. Rather, it was a spiritual kingdom bringing forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life. Listen:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Luke 19:10—The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.</li>
	<li>John 3:17—For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[9]</a> (cf. Lk. 9:56).</li>
	<li>Luke 5:32—I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (cf. Mk. 2:17, Matt. 9:12–13).</li>
	<li>Matthew 20:28—The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (cf. Mk. 10:45).</li>
	<li>John 6:38–39—For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.</li>
</ul>

<p>For Jesus, salvation was not economic prosperity, equal distribution of goods, or sexual liberty without judgment or shame. Instead, salvation came through belief in him, bringing forgiveness of sins and eternal life.</p>

<ul>
	<li>John 3:16–17—For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.</li>
	<li>John 3:36—He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.</li>
	<li>Matthew 9:6 —“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home” (cf. Mk. 2:10–11).</li>
	<li>Luke 5:20—Seeing their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.”</li>
	<li>Luke 7:47–48—“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then he said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.”</li>
</ul>

<p>Jesus knew that in order to accomplish this mission, he must suffer, die, and be raised again, just as Moses and the prophets had foretold.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Luke 12:51—Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.</li>
	<li>Matthew 16:21—From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.</li>
	<li>John 12:27—Now my soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, “Father, save me from this hour”? But for this purpose I came to this hour.</li>
	<li>Matthew 26:28—For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins (cf. Mk. 14:24, Lk. 22:20).</li>
	<li>Luke 24:44–47—Now he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled…. Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (cf. Lk. 24:25–27).</li>
</ul>

<p>There you have it—the complete record of Jesus’ own statements about his purpose and mission. Once again, something is missing—any evidence of any kind that Jesus saw himself as an advocate for social justice. It’s not there. Not a word.</p>

<p>To be clear, there is no question that God in Scripture has a heart for the genuinely oppressed and destitute, and Jesus as God shared that concern as did his church.<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[10]</a> When Jesus encountered deep human need, he responded with compassionate action—characteristically healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, and in two instances, physically feeding multitudes.<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title="">[11]</a> Even so, Jesus’ principal purpose was redressing spiritual poverty, not rectifying social inequities.</p>

<h2>“Who Do You Say that I Am?”</h2>

<p>Reading through that plethora of Bible passages may have been a bit taxing, but there’s a point here.</p>

<p>Near the end of Jesus’ life, he asked his disciples the most important question anyone can consider: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). The answer any person gives to that question seals his fate for eternity. We dare not be mistaken on this issue.</p>

<p>What I have tried to do here is to put Jesus in his proper place for those who have become confused by the cultural noise. I have done that by letting the record—the entire record—speak for itself.</p>

<p>Though I isolated every verse in the Gospels identifying Jesus’ purpose, I could not find a single sentence where Jesus championed the cause of the poor, the outsider, or the disenfranchised <em>as such</em>. There is not even a hint of it—in the sense that it’s commonly understood—in the entire historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>Did Jesus care about the poor, the downtrodden, and the marginalized? Yes. He also cared about the rich, the powerful, and the socially advantaged. Jesus cared about everyone, and he helped anyone who came to him—poor beggar or prostitute, wealthy tax collector or Pharisee.</p>

<p>The right answer to Jesus’ question is Jesus’ own answer, one that fits hand in glove with the message of each of his forerunners. He is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior, the Lamb of God, the living sacrifice who secures forgiveness of sins and eternal life for anyone who bends his knee and beats his breast in penitence before him.<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title="">[12]</a></p>

<p>It is the right answer because no other Jesus saves souls—and that, as it turns out, is what he came to do. Any other Jesus—Jesus the mere moral teacher, Jesus the prophet of Allah, the socialist Jesus, the Gnostic Jesus, the universal Christ Jesus, the spirit brother of Lucifer Jesus, the Hindu guru Jesus, even the social justice Jesus—is a falsehood, a fiction, an urban legend.</p>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[1]</a> Galatians 1:8–9.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[2]</a> Luke 9:62.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[3]</a> These are all studies I’ve done. Find “Divine Direction and Decision Making in the Book of Acts,” “New Testament Prayer,” and the “Preaching God’s Love in Acts?” at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[4]</a> Poor in spirit vs. poor financially, for example.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[5]</a> Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 114.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[6]</a> Hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2–3), a widow’s generosity (Lk. 21:1–4), Zaccheus’s repentance (Lk. 19:8), the rich young ruler’s confusion (Matt. 19:21, Mk. 10:17–27, Lk. 18:18–27), a lesson about the afterlife (Lk. 16:20, 22).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[7]</a> Note, by the way, that Deuteronomy 15:7–8, 11—the passage Jesus may be alluding to here—<em>does</em> enjoin God’s people to care about the poor. In the context, though, this was not Jesus’ point.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn8">
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[8]</a> That Jesus probably had spiritual captives in mind here is clear from his short discourse on freedom and slavery in John 8:31–36.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn9">
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[9]</a> Judgment would come, as John promised, but later, at the end (Matt. 25:31–46; cf. Jn. 9:39).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn10">
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[10]</a> The New Testament Christian community readily responded to poverty—not as an expression of justice, however, but as a voluntarily demonstration of charity (love) and mercy (cf. Acts 11:29, 24:17; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn11">
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[11]</a> Notice, though, that Jesus’ largess in feeding the masses became a distraction for them. He had to rebuke them for continuing to seek physical bread from him instead of hungering for Jesus himself, the bread of life (Jn. 6:26ff.).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn12">
<p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title="">[12]</a> Luke 18:9–14.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-legend-of-the-social-justice-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-legend-of-the-social-justice-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-legend-of-the-social-justice-jesus" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Abortion Is Unjust Discrimination
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/03/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion-is-unjust-discrimination
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Abortion-choice advocates consider their view morally superior. They believe they are defending a woman’s right to control her body. What they don’t realize, though, is that their position leads to an act of unjust discrimination.</p>

<p>Abortion is a type of discrimination. It’s the worst kind, in fact. It disqualifies a human being from being a valuable person.</p>

<p>Just to be clear, a woman should be able to control her own body. She should be generally free from the shackles of government regulation. Men (or women) in public office should not write laws that interfere with a woman’s personal decisions. She should be free to make her own choices about her healthcare, her career, whether she marries (and whom she marries), whether to have children, etc. We can all agree with that.</p>

<p>Our laws stipulate, however, that personal decisions are restricted when they hurt or unjustly discriminate against other people. The question is whether or not a woman’s decision to procure an abortion is an example of unjust discrimination.</p>

<p>The challenge with this question is that the circumstance of pregnancy is incredibly unique. There is nothing analogous to it. During pregnancy, another whole human being starts his or her life inside a woman. This new person literally lives inside a woman’s body for nine months. That creates a tension that doesn’t exist in any other circumstance: a woman is a sovereign person in control of her body, but inside her body exists another person. It’s easy to see the uniqueness of the situation.</p>

<p>Though the average person who supports abortion might deny the unborn is a human being, most people who know the biological facts can’t deny the unborn is a human being. This is because the science of embryology is decisive about the status of the unborn. From the moment of conception, the unborn is a <em>living</em>, <em>distinct</em>, <em>human</em> being. We know the unborn is <em>living</em> because it meets the biological criteria for life (it grows, responds to stimulation, and converts nutrition into energy). We know the unborn is <em>distinct</em> from the mother because it has its own brain, heart, sex organs, fingerprints, and DNA. We know the unborn is <em>human</em> because it has a human genetic signature. Furthermore, living things reproduce their own kind. That means the product of human sexual union will <em>always</em> produce another human being—100% of the time.</p>

<p>Given that two whole, distinct persons exist when a woman is pregnant (the mother and her unborn child), how is abortion unjust discrimination? First, it’s important to recognize that not all discrimination is unjust. It’s appropriate when the characteristic of the person is relevant to the type of discrimination. For example, it’s fair to discriminate (in some ways) against people with disabilities. We deny blind people a driver’s license. Being blind, however, does not warrant being denied the right to vote since blindness isn’t a relevant characteristic to voting. It’s also fair to discriminate against people of a certain age. We don’t allow children to serve in the military because age is relevant to a person’s fighting capability. These are some of the many instances where discrimination is just.</p>

<p>Other kinds of discrimination are unjust. History is crowded with examples where groups of human beings were disqualified from being valuable and were victims of unjust discrimination. For example, the Third Reich discriminated against the Jews. The Jews were a group of human beings who were disqualified from being valuable based on a characteristic—their ethnicity—that wasn’t relevant to the type of discrimination they faced. As a result, they were experimented on and exterminated.</p>

<p>African Americans were discriminated against in the United States. They were also a group of human beings who were disqualified from being valuable based on a characteristic—their skin color—that wasn’t relevant to the type of discrimination they faced. As a result, they were kidnapped and enslaved.</p>

<p>Today, abortion-choice advocates discriminate against the unborn. The unborn are a group of human beings who are disqualified from being valuable based on a characteristic—their location inside their mother—that’s not relevant to the type of discrimination they face. As a result, they are killed with impunity. To be sure, the unborn is inside the mother, and that grants her certain prerogatives over her child, but not the right to kill her son or daughter.</p>

<p>We live in an upside-down world. Abortion-choice advocates claim to champion inclusion, but they exclude a certain class of human beings. They claim to champion the oppressed, but they oppress the weak. They claim to eschew discrimination, but they unjustly discriminate. By contrast, pro-life advocates are inclusive, champion the weak, and don’t discriminate against those who are small, vulnerable, and defenseless.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-is-unjust-discrimination" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-is-unjust-discrimination" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-is-unjust-discrimination" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Jesus Isn’t Going to Calm the Storms in Your Life
topic: Theology
author: Aaron Brake
date: 11/16/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-isn-t-going-to-calm-the-storms-in-your-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation. The correct interpretation of Scripture ensures not only that we understand the text in its proper context but also that we apply it to our lives appropriately. If we misunderstand the <em>meaning </em>of a passage, the <em>application </em>may also be mistaken.</p>

<p>One of the most familiar texts in the Gospel of Mark is the story of Jesus calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee. It is found in Mark 4:35–41 and reads,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A popular application of this passage is a metaphorical one. You’ve probably heard it before. It usually goes something like this: <em>Just as Jesus calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee, so he wants to calm the storms in your own life</em>. The storms you face may be as diverse as the circumstances of life: a strained relationship, a problem at work, finances, even a recently diagnosed sickness or disease. One recent Christian <a href="https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/significance-of-jesus-calming-the-storm.html">article</a> states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The significance of Jesus calming the storm is pertinent to what’s happening in our world today and is evidence of God’s love for us. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on our lives. We’re flooded by numerous types of storms daily. These storms are both internal and external. The intense surges of emotion within us are due to our humanity while the chaotic circumstances around us are beyond our control. Right now, many can relate to the disciples’ emotions when Jesus calmed the storm.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This application has great emotional appeal and brings a wonderful sense of comfort to many Christians. Despite the overwhelming problems and crushing pressures we may face, Jesus will not let you drown. He will not let your boat be dashed against the rocks. He will calm the raging storms, bring an overwhelming sense of peace into your own life, and get you safely to the other side.</p>

<p>But is this what Mark was intending to communicate in this passage?</p>

<h2>Proving Jesus Is the Messiah</h2>

<p>One of the most important rules of hermeneutics to remember is the issue of authorial intent. In other words, what was the purpose of the author when he wrote this, and what was he trying to teach or convey? Mark is clear regarding his intent from the very beginning of his Gospel: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). In his <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Saint-Andrews-Expositional-Commentary-ebook/dp/B00BXIQYQ2/">commentary on Mark</a>, R.C. Sproul states, “The facts Mark gives us are included to demonstrate two things: Jesus is the promised Messiah and the Son of God.... That is the thematic statement for the entire gospel” (p. 3).</p>

<p>In context, the meaning of this passage seems rather straightforward: Jesus exercises his authority over nature, giving evidence of his identity as the Messiah. As readers of this text, we are led to ask the same question as the disciples when we come to the end: Who then is this? Who is this Jesus? Given that one of the primary goals of the Gospel writers is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah promised by God, it should come as no surprise that the question of his identity is often raised in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 16:13–15).</p>

<p>In his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Fire-Bible-Ignites-Change/dp/1576831426/"><em>Playing with Fire</em></a>, author Walt Russell summarizes the reason the Gospel writers were intent on including the miracles of Jesus in their writing, such as calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Every one of His miracles was to prove that He was the Messiah.... While these miracles point in some sense to Jesus’ deity, they primarily point to His identity as Messiah (which includes deity). This is what the Gospel writers were trying to convince their readers of—that Jesus is the long-promised Messiah of Israel! ... By stilling the wind and the sea, Jesus proved that He, and He alone, had the authority from the Father to bring about the safety from the hazards of nature that would be found in the messianic kingdom. In other words, only Jesus of Nazareth could command the wind and sea as God does. Therefore, only Jesus of Nazareth could be the prophesied Messiah! (p. 200)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Given this understanding, is it an appropriate application to say that Jesus wants to “calm the storms” in our life? When the sea of trouble rises, is Jesus going to rebuke our waves of hardship and take us calmly to the other side? If this is what the passage is communicating, then think about the implications. It would mean “Jesus is asleep and we need to wake Him up and rebuke Him to motivate Him to give attention to our wind and waves!” (Russell, 201) But pastors and preachers <em>never </em>make that application!</p>

<p>Despite this, the <a href="https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/significance-of-jesus-calming-the-storm.html">article</a> cited above goes on to say,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A good question for us to ask ourselves as COVID-19 rages is, where is our faith? ... Jesus may have rebuked the disciples for their weak faith, but he didn’t abandon them to let them drown. Instead, he calmed the storm and then continued to teach them who he was and demonstrated what it was to have faith in God. Do we have more faith in the pandemic than in the mercy and grace of God? There is not a disease that Jesus was unable to heal.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is true there is not a disease that Jesus is unable to heal. That doesn’t mean Jesus heals every disease. As <a href="https://clayjones.net/2017/08/preparing-to-triumph-in-suffering/">Clay Jones</a> is fond of saying, the only thing that is going to prevent you from watching everyone you know die from murder, accident, or disease, is your own death by murder, accident, or disease.</p>

<p>We recently lost our godson David to cancer. He was only 16 years old. We prayed for him numerous times over the course of a year while he was fighting and undergoing treatment. We asked God to heal him. We asked God for a miracle. But our prayers for healing were not answered. David died just before his 17th birthday. Jesus didn’t “calm the storm” in his life. And while there is joy in knowing he is now in the presence of the Lord, the family continues to be filled with grief and sadness. If we are really going to press this “Jesus calming the storm” metaphor, then we should acknowledge that Jesus might very well let you drown (it happens every day, in fact).</p>

<p>In short, Jesus isn’t going to calm the storms in your life because that was never the intended application of the passage. God might take you through numerous trials and tribulations and allow you to suffer in the process. This is why it is important for Christians to develop a biblical <a href="https://journal.rts.edu/article/a-pastoral-theology-of-suffering/">theology of suffering</a>.</p>

<h2>The Focus of the Gospels Is Jesus, Not You</h2>

<p>None of this means that God is not with you during trials and temptations (1 Cor. 10:13). Nor is it to say that God is not present with you during hardship (Heb. 13:5). God comforts us in all our troubles (2 Cor. 1:3), and we know God will ultimately cause all things to work together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). But Jesus never promised to calm the storms in life. He promised the opposite: “In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).</p>

<p>Remember that the primary focus of the Gospels is Jesus, not you. Reading the Gospels with a me-centered, narcissistic approach will result in the “Jesus is going to calm my storms” type of application. This can have the detrimental effect of “knowing more about ourselves and less about Jesus” (Russell, 205). When interpreting Scripture, first determine the <em>meaning</em> of the text, then move on to <em>application</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When I say that the Gospels are about Jesus, this does not mean they do not give us any insight into ourselves or have significance and application to our lives. Of course they do. However, the Gospels were primarily written to tell us about who Jesus is, what He did, and why He is the only, true object of our faith. If we change this focus, we distort the very essence of the Gospels. By making the Gospels more about ourselves, we ironically lessen their transforming impact on our lives, because the more we learn about Jesus Christ, the more we will entrust ourselves to Him as His disciples. (Russell, 205)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The story of Jesus calming the storm should fill us with a sense of fear and awe and, like the disciples, cause us to ask, “Who then is this?” The Jesus who calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee is the same Jesus who raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11), the same Jesus who promises to raise you on the last day when you place your trust in him (John 6:40). That is our ultimate hope.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<p><em>Aaron Brake received his B.A. in criminal justice and M.A. in Christian apologetics from Biola University. He is currently working on an M.A. in theology through Reformed Theological Seminary.</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-isn-t-going-to-calm-the-storms-in-your-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-isn-t-going-to-calm-the-storms-in-your-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-isn-t-going-to-calm-the-storms-in-your-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Understand the Views You Don’t Agree With
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/09/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/understand-the-views-you-don-t-agree-with
content:
            <div> 
		<p>How well do you understand the views you rally against? I hope you know them well before you attempt to respond to them. I keep getting asked a somewhat concerning question. Before I tell you what it is, let me give you some context.</p>

<p>We, at Stand to Reason, are in the middle of our <a href="http://www.realityapologetics.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Reality Apologetics</a> conference season. It’s a student conference (although, adults, parents, pastors, and other non-students are allowed to attend) we put on in six cities around the country. Tim Barnett and I open the conference with a keynote presentation where we role-play a debate between a Christian (played by Tim) and a non-Christian (played by me). During the back and forth, I offer common arguments raised in support of abortion, homosexuality, naturalistic evolution, and relativism.</p>

<p>Here’s the question I’ve been asked multiple times after the keynote ends: “Was it hard for you to articulate the position in favor of abortion?” I was asked the same question concerning my ability to defend homosexuality, evolution, and relativism. People told me they were surprised at how accurately I characterized these opposing views (e.g., the Bible supports homosexuality, naturalistic evolution is true, etc.).</p>

<p>People shouldn’t be surprised, though, since it’s my responsibility to give a convincing formulation of the views I’m attempting to address. As ambassadors for Christ, we want to be fair with how we handle ideas that are raised up against the Christian worldview. We should understand a view we disagree with before we try to formulate a response to it. Here are three reasons why.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>Understanding a position you don’t agree with shows respect to the people who hold those views. </strong>If you’re in a conversation with someone you disagree with, it is respectful to represent their view accurately. It shows you’re paying attention and taking their view seriously.</li>
	<li><strong>Understanding a position you disagree with prevents you from committing a straw man fallacy.</strong> This is an embarrassing mistake in which you misrepresent a person’s view so that it is easier to refute. Then, you attack that caricature of their view rather than the view they actually hold. It’s critical to characterize the other person’s view as accurately as possible. This also shows respect to a person you don’t agree with.</li>
	<li><strong>Understanding a position you disagree with helps you develop a more robust response to the view. </strong>The stronger you can articulate the other view, the stronger your response will be when you think through how to show it’s mistaken.</li>
</ol>

<p>The most obvious way to understand a view you disagree with is to study the view. Find a book or article written by an advocate of the view to understand it. What if, however, you’re in a conversation and discover you don’t know the other person’s view? There’s a simple solution: use the <a href="https://www.str.org/w/take-a-tip-from-lt.-columbo-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Columbo Tactic</a>. If you’re familiar with Stand to Reason, you’ve probably already heard about this approach. It’s simply about asking questions. Two kinds of questions are relevant here. The first kind of question discovers <em>what</em> a person believes. The most common way of expressing this is by asking, “What do you mean by that?” The second kind of question discovers <em>why</em> a person holds their view. That can be simply asked with, “How did you come to that conclusion?” By asking questions of the other person, the conversation will be more engaging, respectful, and fun. Plus, you’ll come to better understand the view you don’t agree with—something that is essential before formulating a response.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funderstand-the-views-you-don-t-agree-with" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funderstand-the-views-you-don-t-agree-with" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funderstand-the-views-you-don-t-agree-with" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Take This First Simple Step before You Respond
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/24/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/take-this-first-simple-step-before-you-respond
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If someone said to me, “Evolution is a well-proven fact,” I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. Their statement <em>could</em> be true. It could also be false. Why? Because I don’t yet know what they mean by “evolution.”</p>

<p>I understand that, for a Christian, the knee-jerk response is to disagree and marshal all our reasons. But what reasons would you be providing? What evidence would you levy against that statement? You can’t know what to say or even whether to agree or disagree until you first take an important step: Find out what they mean by “evolution.” The best way to do that is to employ the Columbo Tactic. First, however, we need to understand some terms.</p>

<p>The word “evolution” has a myriad of definitions; some are controversial, while others are innocuous. For example, evolution can simply refer to change over time. According to this definition, cities evolve, your hairdo evolves, your job description evolves—everything evolves. There’s nothing controversial about this definition, even from the perspective of a Christian.</p>

<p>A second and more common definition is the special theory of evolution (some refer to it as microevolution), which Charles Darwin articulated in the first part of his landmark book, <em>On the Origin of Species.</em> According to this definition, species can undergo small changes that alter their characteristics. A common example that’s cited in evolutionary textbooks is bacteria’s ability to develop resistance to antibiotics. This is why your doctor will tell you to finish the entire course of antibiotics if you’re sick with a bacterial infection. If you don’t, the bacteria that made you sick could&nbsp;change or “evolve” and develop a resistance to the antibiotic medication, rendering the treatment ineffective. These bacteria are the same bacteria as before, but now with a notable change. Notice that there’s nothing controversial about this definition and Christians can readily accept it.</p>

<p>A third definition of evolution is the general theory of evolution (often referred to as macroevolution), which Darwin also explained in his book. This definition of evolution is an extrapolation of microevolution and asserts that species can undergo large-scale changes. This third definition explains how four-legged land mammals (e.g. elomeryx)—over long periods of time—evolved into dolphins and whales. It attempts to explain how amphibians evolved into reptiles and how ape-like creatures evolved into modern humans. This definition of evolution is contested by many Christians.</p>

<p>Evolution can also refer to descent with modification and other definitions. It’s not necessary to specify all of them here. I’m also not trying to argue for or against any type of evolution. I’m only highlighting the fact that some definitions of evolution can be whole-heartedly accepted by faithful Christians, while other definitions might be rejected (for whatever reasons).</p>

<p>What’s critical to understand is that you can’t reply to the claim “Evolution is a well-proven fact” until <em>after </em>you have determined what they mean by that word. You must determine what definition of evolution they have in mind. If you don’t, you’re at risk of making a mistake and appearing foolish.</p>

<p>For example, imagine your knee-jerk response to that statement is to say, “No, it’s not. Evolution is <em>not</em> a well-proven fact.” Suppose also they have either of the first two definitions in mind (change over time or microevolution). What you have just communicated to them is that you don’t believe that change over time or microevolution is a well-proven fact. That’s not only untrue, but it makes you appear foolish.</p>

<p>That’s why it’s critical to first discover what they mean by evolution by employing the Columbo Tactic. If you’re familiar with Stand to Reason, you’ll probably be familiar with our use of this approach. The Columbo Tactic is about using questions—instead of statements—to make your point, respond to a challenge, or productively advance the conversation. Although there are three kinds of Columbo questions, I’m only referring to the first one here.</p>

<p>Here’s the key Columbo question: “What do you mean by that?” or (to apply it to our topic) “What do you mean by evolution?” Notice that is a very simple step. Anyone can ask that question. Plus, it shows that you are interested in their idea and are eager to understand them. It will also buy you some extra time as they explain what they mean by “evolution.”</p>

<p>Once they tell you which definition they are referring to, you can give an informed response to their actual view rather than to a position they don’t hold. This is not only the logical question to ask, it’s also the gracious thing to do.</p>

<p>This clarifying Columbo question applies to almost any conversation. If someone claims that stem cell research should be permitted, you can’t reply with “Yes it should” or “No it shouldn’t” until you first understand what they mean by stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research kills an innocent human being, while adult stem cell research does not. If they are referring to adult stem cell research when you fervently claim they’re mistaken, they’re likely to wonder what���s wrong with you. Once you discover which form they are referring to, you can meet them on their terms and respond appropriately. Otherwise, you will miss their true meaning and your conversation will suffer.</p>

<p>The same is true of someone’s use of the term “pro-choice,” “Christian,” or “God.” Almost any word requires clarification, so your goal should be to <a href="https://www.str.org/w/understand-the-views-you-don-t-agree-with" rel="noopener" target="_blank">understand their view before you respond to it</a>.</p>

<p>Does it take extra time? Yes. Is it more work? Slightly. Will it pay off? Absolutely. In our world today, there’s far too much heat and too little light. Clarifying a person’s view isn’t going to necessarily increase agreement, but it will increase respect, understanding, and graciousness in any conversation and, consequently, in any relationship. That’s a necessity for any ambassador for Jesus Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-this-first-simple-step-before-you-respond" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-this-first-simple-step-before-you-respond" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-this-first-simple-step-before-you-respond" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Must You Remain Silent on Abortion Unless You Adopt a Baby?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/02/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/must-you-remain-silent-on-abortion-unless-you-adopt-a-baby-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Planned Parenthood employee thought she had me with her question: “How many unwanted children have you adopted?” “None,” I replied. She probably thought, <em>Checkmate,&nbsp;I got him.</em> The pro-life view results in more babies being born. So it follows, according to this lady’s thinking, that if I don’t adopt any of them, I’m disqualified from arguing against abortion. Though this question is rhetorically powerful, it’s not a compelling case against pro-lifers.</p>

<p>Let me be clear: Adoption <em>is </em>beautiful. That’s for certain. It’s a noble and praiseworthy act when a loving couple sees a child in need and adopts him as their own.</p>

<p>But if you’ve never adopted a child, does this disqualify you from speaking out against abortion? Although this is a common challenge raised by abortion-choice advocates, there are (at least) five problems with this thinking.</p>

<p><strong>First, there is no logical connection between a person’s unwillingness to adopt a child and their moral claim that abortion is wrong.</strong> Just because both are related to the subject of abortion, that doesn’t mean they are contradictory. How does a pro-lifer’s unwillingness to adopt a baby give another person justification to kill that baby? In logic, this is called a red herring. It’s a distraction from the main point. The question illegitimately shifts the attention from the morality of abortion to the pro-life person. It’s clever sophistry but bad logic.</p>

<p><strong>Second, the misstep becomes more obvious with two morally comparable illustrations. </strong>Imagine you’re arguing in 19th-century America that slavery is immoral, and a slavery advocate retorts, “How many ex-slaves have you employed in your company?” Your argument against slavery is dismissed because, if it succeeds, it results in freed slaves who are “unemployed.” If you don’t employ them, it’s alleged you can’t argue against slavery. That doesn’t make sense, though. The question of whether or not slavery should be abolished should be decided based on the merits of the argument against slavery and not on your willingness to hire freed slaves.</p>

<p>Or imagine you argue to criminalize sleeping on a city’s sidewalks, thereby displacing the homeless population. Someone responds by asking, “How many homeless people are you willing to house in your home?” Even if you wouldn’t take in a single homeless person, why should your argument in favor of such a law be dismissed? Consideration of your position should be based on the merits of your argument and not on your willingness to house the homeless. To be sure, we <em>would</em> need to determine what to do about the displaced homeless population, but that’s a different problem.</p>

<p>In the same way, the question of whether abortion is wrong should be decided on the merits of the argument and not on the pro-lifer’s willingness or unwillingness to adopt babies born from a woman who decided against aborting her child.</p>

<p><strong>Third, this challenge is an <em>ad hominem </em>attack.</strong> <em>Ad hominem</em> is a Latin term for the logical mistake made when someone attacks another person’s character instead of their argument. In this case, the abortion-choice advocate attacks the pro-lifer’s character—claiming they’re immoral because they won’t adopt babies—instead of engaging the reasons given in their argument against abortion. Whether or not a pro-lifer is immoral has nothing to do with the validity of their argument against abortion.</p>

<p><strong>Fourth, the challenge presumes an impossible standard.</strong> How many babies does a pro-lifer need to adopt before they qualify to argue against abortion? One baby? That would hardly make a dent in the number of babies that would need adoption if we ended abortion. What about two? That’s also not very much. Three? Still lacking. What’s the magic number of adopted babies needed to qualify a pro-lifer to speak against abortion? No individual or married couple could adopt enough babies to make a significant difference. An abortion-choice advocate could always claim their effort was insufficient.</p>

<p>My friend and colleague at Stand to Reason, <a href="https://www.str.org/greg-koukl">Greg Koukl</a>, once took <a href="https://www.str.org/w/do-pro-lifers-care-about-born-children-">a call on his radio show</a> from a female abortion-choice advocate. She challenged him by asking how many foster children he was personally raising in his home. Greg explained that he and his wife had adopted two girls from teenaged mothers in crisis pregnancies. That didn’t satisfy his caller, though, nor did his descriptions of the other ways he has helped mothers and babies over the years.</p>

<p><strong>Fifth, the challenge is a smokescreen.</strong> Abortion-choice advocates don’t seem to believe this challenge is a serious defense of abortion. When a pro-lifer answers their challenge by providing proof of an adoption, the abortion-choice advocate is caught off guard and quickly changes the subject, showing that the “adoption” challenge wasn’t their real concern.</p>

<p>What makes this challenge odd is that it presumes the pro-life community is doing nothing to meet the needs of women (pregnant or not) and their children. The reality is that there are more pregnancy resource centers in the United States than there are abortion clinics. These centers and their staff provide counseling, pregnancy testing, maternity supplies, ultrasounds, housing, and even financial assistance for women and their unborn and born babies.</p>

<p>That’s why this challenge is not only based on faulty reasoning but also shortsighted. Abortion-choice advocates appear to care for unadopted babies, but they betray their true position with their alternative—kill unborn babies before they’re born. Pro-lifers, by contrast, not only argue against such ghastly action but also take steps to care for both mother and baby.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmust-you-remain-silent-on-abortion-unless-you-adopt-a-baby-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmust-you-remain-silent-on-abortion-unless-you-adopt-a-baby-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmust-you-remain-silent-on-abortion-unless-you-adopt-a-baby-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can You Stand for Truth without Being Offensive?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/09/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-you-stand-for-truth-without-being-offensive-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I often speak on controversial subjects: abortion, homosexuality, Islam, transgenderism, bioethics. These aren’t topics that are casually brought up over Christmas dinner and calmly discussed with out-of-town family. That’s why believers often ask me how they can stand for truth on controversial topics without being offensive. Here are three quick things I tell them.</p>

<p><strong>First, I’m grateful for their concern to avoid being crass and offensive.</strong> I see too many believers who don’t care at all—or at least appear to not care. They use the truth like a club to beat people over the head. Grace? What grace? That’s for Christ to extend to non-believers, they say.</p>

<p>But believers should do whatever they can to communicate the truth in a winsome and gracious way. Scripture identifies them as ambassadors for Christ (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A20&amp;version=NASB1995" rel="noopener" target="_blank">2 Cor. 5:20</a>). That means they represent Jesus with their life. How they come across to other people will be a reflection upon the good name of Jesus. Believers, therefore, should strive to speak in a warm, friendly, and kind manner. That’s especially necessary when they’re addressing a controversial topic.</p>

<p><strong>Second, they need to manage their expectations.</strong> It’s unreasonable to expect people who hold a non-biblical worldview will find all our positions unoffensive as long as we communicate in a certain way. Some truth claims will be offensive no matter how kindly, graciously, and lovingly we communicate them. After all, Paul reminds us that as long as we live according to godly principles, it’s virtually guaranteed we will be persecuted (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A12&amp;version=NASB1995https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A12&amp;version=NASB1995" rel="noopener" target="_blank">2 Tim. 3:12</a>). We should expect that people will not only reject the content of our beliefs but also be offended by them. If we expect anything otherwise, we’ll be shocked or upset when things don’t go our way.</p>

<p><strong>Third, remember that even Jesus was offensive.</strong> Scripture describes him as full of grace and truth. He was the perfect answer giver. Jesus knew how to say the right things in the right way. Despite his perfect ability, those who held a different view were aghast at his claims. In fact, there were multiple assassination attempts on his life. If Jesus couldn’t stand for truth without being offensive, you have no chance. Remember what our Lord said (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A18-20&amp;version=NASB1995" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John 15:18–20</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.”&nbsp;If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can expect to be hated and persecuted by virtue of following Jesus. In the meantime, do your best to be a winsome ambassador for Jesus. Try to be as inoffensive as you can when addressing controversial topics. But when people are offended by your biblical values, don’t be surprised. That’s part of what it means to be a follower of Christ.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-stand-for-truth-without-being-offensive-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-stand-for-truth-without-being-offensive-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-you-stand-for-truth-without-being-offensive-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Very Pagan Christmas?
topic: History
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 12/16/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-very-pagan-christmas-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The story goes something like this: Christmas is celebrated on December 25th because newly-converted Constantine (emperor of Rome in AD 306���337) tried to Christianize a pagan holiday in the hopes of making Christianity more palatable to the Romans. He appointed the date of the Feast of the Unconquered Sun, December 25th, to celebrate the birth of Jesus. So, the Christmas holiday is just a copycat of a pagan holiday.</p>

<p>This is the story. Is it true, though? If not, how did Christmas come to be celebrated on December 25th?</p>

<h2>Did Constantine Choose December 25th?</h2>

<p>The biblical text doesn’t offer much detail with respect to the date of Jesus’ birth. There’s no date given in the Gospels or Acts. Luke mentions shepherds in the fields with sheep (Luke 2:8), implying it might have been spring as opposed to winter, but that’s hardly sufficient evidence for or against a December 25th date.</p>

<p>What about extra-biblical sources? Is there any evidence for a birth celebration in the writings of the church fathers? Origen (AD 165–264) wrote mockingly of Romans celebrating the anniversaries of birthdays,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> dismissing them as altogether “pagan.” Clement (AD 150–215) wrote about the birth of Jesus, reporting several different dates proposed by different Christian groups. There’s no mention of December 25th, though.</p>

<p>The first time we see the December 25th birthday in written history is in <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Philocalian-Calendar">the Philocalian Calendar</a> from AD 354. The document contains various dates tied to events, the first being December 25th. Next to the date, it says, “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.” Now, this is after the reign of Constantine, leaving open the possibility of a co-opted pagan holiday. But there’s more.</p>

<p>In AD 400, Augustine (AD 354–430) wrote about the Donatists, a group of Christians who emerged in AD 312. These dissident Christians seem to have been the first to celebrate the nativity of Jesus on December 25th. Being under Roman oppression, the Donatists were opposed to any compromise with anything pagan. They wouldn’t have merged Christmas with a pagan, Roman holiday.</p>

<p>Not only this, but in the article “<a href="https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/how-december-25-became-christmas">How December 25 Became Christmas</a>,” Andrew McGowan says, “The December 25 feast seems to have existed before 312—before Constantine and his conversion.” According to McGowan, the earliest known celebrations of Christmas can actually be traced to older North African traditions from the second half of the third century. These traditions are believed to have been adopted by the Donatists.</p>

<p>So, the earliest known celebration of Christmas on December 25th was in the second half of the third century. This is well before Constantine, during a time when Christians were persecuted in Rome and vigilant in avoiding any pagan connections.</p>

<h2>Where Did the Idea of a Christianized Pagan Festival Come From?</h2>

<p>It seems clear that the story about Constantine taking over a pagan celebration for Jesus just isn’t true. So, where and when did the idea that Christmas grew out of pagan origins come from?</p>

<p>We’ve seen that the church fathers didn’t mention December 25th as being Jesus’ birthday, so of course they never mentioned co-opting a pagan holiday to commemorate it. But if it really were the case that the date of a pagan holiday was chosen for Christmas in order to make Christianity more popular and understandable, surely one of them would have written about it. It’s not like the idea of pagan celebrations being adopted by Christians was controversial. Christian leaders often did this. In AD 601, Gregory the Great urged Christians to turn pagan temples into churches and to repurpose pagan festivals into feasts celebrating Christian martyrs.</p>

<p>Needless to say, there are no known early sources indicating Christmas grew out of pagan origins. For this, we have to go all the way to the 12th century. In his article, McGowan points out Dionysius bar-Salibi was the first to suggest Christmas was moved to December 25th to correspond with the pagan festival Sol Invictus (i.e., the Feast of the Unconquered Sun). Then the record is silent again.</p>

<p>The idea that early Christians commandeered pagan winter solstice celebrations for their own purposes actually comes from post-enlightenment comparative religion scholars. For the first 1700 years of the church, no one made that connection.</p>

<h2>Why Did the Early Christians Celebrate on December 25th?</h2>

<p>So, how did Christians end up celebrating Christmas on December 25th? It’s widely accepted that the reason December 25th is the date for Christmas has to do with the date of Jesus’ death and his conception. To answer this question, we need to do some math.</p>

<p>There are three dates in our equation: Jesus’ death, Jesus’ conception, and Jesus’ birth.</p>

<p>Let’s start with the date we’re most sure of: Jesus’ death. Easter developed as a Christian holiday much earlier than Christmas, so we know a little more about it. Tertullian (AD 155–220) said Jesus died on the 14th day of Nisan. This is March 25th according to the calendar we’re familiar with, and it lines up with biblical evidence. Notice March 25th is nine months before December 25th.</p>

<p>Our second date is Jesus’ conception. An anonymous fourth-century Christian treatise titled <em>On the Solstices and Equinoxes</em> ties the date of Jesus’ death to the date of Jesus’ conception:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March [March 25], which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on that day, he was conceived on the same he suffered.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In <em>On the Trinity</em>, Augustine ties the two dates together, as well, but goes a step further:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Knowing human gestation takes nine months, and believing Jesus was conceived on March 25th, Augustine did the math for us. If Jesus was conceived on March 25th, then nine months later, on December 25th, he was born. This is how we’ve come to celebrate Jesus’ birthday on December 25th.</p>

<p>In the end, we can’t be certain of the date of Jesus’ nativity. That’s okay. We can be certain of something much greater. Christmas reminds us that the King of Ages came obscurely, miraculously, and mysteriously. Christmas represents the dawn of redeeming grace and the mysteries at the center of the world. A virgin birth. A perfect life. A rugged cross. A bodily resurrection. These are not fanciful Christmas stories based on pagan myths. This is the way the world really is. This is what Christmas is about.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Origen, Homily on Leviticus 8</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-very-pagan-christmas-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-very-pagan-christmas-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-very-pagan-christmas-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Top Ten Posts of 2021
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/28/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-top-ten-posts-of-2021
content:
            <div> 
		<p>At the end of each year, I’m always curious to see which posts were the most popular since I think it’s an interesting window into the ideas people were struggling to work through and make sense of over the last year. And of course, if you missed any of them the first time around, now is the time to catch up. Enjoy this look back at 2021!</p>

<ol start="10">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/what-motivates-sin-and-how-to-fight-it-">What Motivates Sin (and How to Fight It)</a> – “It’s when you think you’re missing out on something good that you try to grab things God hasn’t given you in a way he hasn’t allowed. You think you’re missing out on something wonderful and that you need to rectify that situation in order to have a truly fulfilled life, when in reality, the only way to <em>truly</em> miss out is by <em>not being</em> <em>obedient in the situation God has you in right now</em>. Even if that means there are some good things you will not have.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="9">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/how-will-the-people-in-heaven-view-hell-">How Will the People in Heaven View Hell?</a> – “This is the God we worship—the God who is both just and the justifier (Rom. 3:21–26). We see his good justice not only as good in itself, but also in light of his unexpected and beautiful role as justifier. Goodness on top of goodness. Glory on top of glory. And we will rejoice in him forever.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="8">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/christianity-is-the-best-explanation-for-reality">Christianity Is the Best Explanation for Reality</a> – “Lewis believed Christianity provides a framework for understanding many commonsense ideas that people in our society affirm. I agree. If you listen carefully to what people claim are the powerful truths they live by, you’ll recognize that Christianity is the only worldview that can justify all of them. Consider the following claims about reality and how not every belief system can account for them.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="7">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/pro-gay-theology-invents-a-new-sin">Pro-Gay Theology Invents a New Sin</a> – “Notice what pro-gay theology advocates have done. They’ve invented a new type of sin. They’ve taken an existing sin (homosexual sex) and divided it up into two flavors: sinful homosexual sex and non-sinful homosexual sex—a distinction foreign to the corpus of Scripture. It’s no longer homosexual sex that’s sin. It’s <em>abusive</em> homosexual sex that’s sin. The added adjective is a qualifier that creates a new sin. Now, people can allegedly sidestep the biblical prohibition against homosexual sex.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="6">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/escaping-the-clever-kafka-trap">Escaping the Clever “Kafka Trap”</a> – “Be alert for the linguistic baloney, and don’t be taken in by it. If it sounds silly, it probably is. The Christian doesn’t need verbal ruses like this, of course, because when someone has a sound, defensible idea, he doesn’t need semantic tricks to make his case. A straightforward appeal to the evidence is all that clear thinking requires.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="5">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/do-not-nod-your-head-to-lies">Do Not Nod Your Head to Lies</a> – “In order to maintain this level of a reality rewrite, the shame is necessary to keep the truth at bay. And shame will not be enough. Increasing force will no doubt follow. As Matt Anderson explained so eloquently years ago when people were merely ignoring the reality of the unique nature of the man-woman union (something that is not even as immediately apparent as the basic difference between men and women): ‘Same-sex marriage will lead to a soft-despotism <em>because it has to.’</em>&nbsp;It has to in order to ensure everyone maintains the mirage.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="4">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/why-the-puddle-analogy-fails-against-fine-tuning">Why the Puddle Analogy Fails against Fine-Tuning</a> – “Some think the puddle analogy deals a critical blow against the fine-tuning argument. If the pondering puddle shouldn’t be surprised about its existence, we shouldn’t either. But does the analogy work? … The puddle analogy has a problem. And it’s a big one. It’s a <em>false analogy</em>. The analogy doesn’t work because getting a life-permitting universe is vastly different from getting a puddle-permitting hole.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="3">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/when-spiritual-heroes-fall">When Spiritual Heroes Fall</a> – “I cannot promise that these five principles will alleviate all your pain, quiet all your confusion, or quell all your anger when one of your spiritual heroes falls. These points have served me well for many years, though, and I trust they will guide you well, too.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="2">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/why-pronouns-matter%E2%80%A6a-lot">Why Pronouns Matter…a Lot</a> – “If pronouns really were ‘inconsequential little things,’ then why has so much ink been spilt—and, in some cases, livelihoods lost—for not getting them right? Because getting particular <em>pronouns</em> right means getting a particular <em>narrative</em> right. Here is what is at stake with those simple little words. We are being besieged by a worldview that is completely foreign to Jesus’ view of reality. According to this view, reality is not ‘out there’ in God’s world, but ‘in here’ in the internal world of feelings and personal beliefs.”</li>
</ol>

<ol start="1">
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-claim-about-homosexuality-in-the-film-1946-is-irrelevant">The Claim about Homosexuality in the Film <em>1946</em> Is Irrelevant</a> – “An upcoming documentary film claims the RSV translators of the Bible wrongly inserted the word ‘homosexuals’ in a New Testament passage back in 1946…. The good news is that it’s easy to spot the fallacies in this film. The bad news is that many people won’t.”</li>
</ol>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-top-ten-posts-of-2021" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-top-ten-posts-of-2021" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-top-ten-posts-of-2021" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Puzzling Claim That Abortion Is Safer Than Childbirth
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/21/2021
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-puzzling-claim-that-abortion-is-safer-than-childbirth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m mystified by this common defense of abortion.</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;"><strong>Abortion-choice advocate</strong>: “I’m concerned that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and abortion will become illegal.”</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;"><strong>Pro-life advocate</strong>: “I actually think that would be a good thing because abortion kills an innocent human being.”</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;"><strong>Abortion-choice advocate</strong>: “No, it doesn’t. Prove it.”</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;"><strong>Pro-life advocate</strong>: “The science of embryology shows the unborn is a human being. [The pro-lifer proceeds to give a brief scientific defense of his claim that the unborn is a living human being who is distinct from his mother.] Therefore, since it’s normally illegal to kill innocent human beings, abortion should also be illegal.”</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;"><strong>Abortion-choice advocate</strong>: “Yeah, but abortion is 13 times safer than childbirth, so we should keep abortion legal.”</p>

<p>Perhaps this last comment is puzzling to you, as well. After all, every successful abortion kills a tiny human being and often in a violent way. How is that safe? How is that safer than childbirth? It’s not.</p>

<p>The pro-life claim is that abortion kills an innocent human being. Now, that claim might be false, but if it’s true, then abortion <em>can’t</em> be safer than childbirth. Either way, it doesn’t make sense for an abortion-choice advocate to simply declare abortion is safer than childbirth. They would have to first show that abortion doesn’t kill an innocent human being before they could claim abortion is safer than childbirth.</p>

<p>This mistake in thinking is known as circular reasoning (or begging the question). This occurs when a person presumes their conclusion is already true, but they haven’t proven it. In this hypothetical conversation, the abortion-choice advocate is presuming the unborn is <em>not</em> a human being. If that presumption is true, then abortion merely removes tissue and does not kill a human being. Of course, abortion—defined that way—would be safer. After all, the only person involved in abortion is the mother. But whether the unborn is mere tissue or a bona fide human being is precisely the question that needs to be answered. That’s why the key question to first resolve in any abortion discussion is, “<a href="https://www.str.org/w/only-one-question" rel="noopener" target="_blank">What is the unborn</a>?”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-puzzling-claim-that-abortion-is-safer-than-childbirth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-puzzling-claim-that-abortion-is-safer-than-childbirth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-puzzling-claim-that-abortion-is-safer-than-childbirth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Transgender People Fixing God’s Mistakes?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/04/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-transgender-people-fixing-god-s-mistakes-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>God isn’t perfect. According to a tweet by a “transgender ally,” sometimes he makes mistakes we can fix. Listen to what she <a href="https://twitter.com/dgcomedy/status/1040984084015730690?lang=en">wrote</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God made you a brunette, yet you are now a blonde. God gave you bad vision, yet you fixed it with glasses. God gave you crooked teeth, yet you straightened them with braces. Trans people change the outside to match the inside just like you do. Sit down. Jesus said to.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Allegedly, God could have given you the wrong body, and fixing that mistake is just like getting glasses or braces. This thinking, however, is misguided for at least four reasons.</p>

<p><strong>First, it presumes God makes mistakes.</strong> Not everything that exists was intentionally made <em>that way</em> by our Creator. Genesis explains that God made all things good. What Scripture also teaches, though, is that creation became tainted by sin, and God’s perfect design was broken. Babies are born with missing limbs, impaired immune systems, or Down syndrome. That’s not God’s intent, however. Humanity sinned and corrupted creation along with it. Birth defects—whether anatomical or physiological—are not God’s fault, but are ultimately the result of mankind’s sin.</p>

<p><strong>Second, it wrongly compares the transgender desire to change one’s body to repairing a damaged organ.</strong> Every <a href="https://www.str.org/w/biologys-divorce-from-teleology">body part is designed to function a certain way</a>. Eyes are meant to see, and teeth are meant to grind food. Getting glasses (or LASIK surgery), for example, is meant to restore the eyes to their original purpose, which is to see clearly.</p>

<p>My son, for example, was born with a droopy eyelid that impaired his ability to see. A doctor surgically “lifted” his eyelid so it wouldn’t obscure his vision and his eye could function properly. This wasn’t an attempt to “change the outside to match the inside.” It was simply a surgery to correct an eyelid deformity and restore an organ to its original design.</p>

<p>Transgender ideation, however, isn’t concerned with correcting a malfunctioning organ. Rather, the transgender person often wants to alter normally functioning body systems (e.g., through hormones) or amputate healthy and fully functioning sex organs.</p>

<p><strong>Third, it wrongly presumes one’s internal perception is accurate.</strong> The tweet claims transgender people merely want to change their body to match how they feel inside. But why assume a person’s thinking about their body is always correct? There are many conditions where a person’s internal state doesn’t match their body and it’s their perception—not their body—that is mistaken.</p>

<p>Some people, for example, wrongly perceive their body to be fat even when they are thin. There <em>is</em> a mismatch between their mind and body, but it’s their “inside” that’s mistaken. Why automatically presume the internal perception of someone who identifies as transgender is correct? It’s possible they should alter their mind to match their body and not vice versa.</p>

<p><strong>Fourth, the tweet begs the question.</strong> This is perhaps the most serious problem. Begging the question (or circular reasoning) is a logical error in which you presume something is true instead of proving it to be true. In this case, the conclusion the author wants you to believe is that it’s normal for a transgender person to change their body to match their “inside.” What evidence does she provide for such a claim? None. She offers some illustrations (correcting vision with glasses or bad teeth with braces) to describe what she means.</p>

<p>But illustrations are not arguments, and they don’t prove anything. Illustrations illustrate. They make an idea more clear by describing it in a different way. Her claim is that altering your sex organs to make them match how you feel inside is similar to wearing glasses or getting braces (a dubious claim indeed). Even if wearing glasses were analogous to amputating a healthy sex organ (which I don’t grant), all the author has done is provide an illustration to attempt to more clearly describe what she is talking about. But whether it’s right to cosmetically alter your body and/or sex organs to match how you feel is precisely what needs to be proven. This tweet, however, simply <em>assumes</em> that claim is true and provides poor analogies to illustrate it. The author does nothing to <em>provide a reason</em> why such a claim is true in the first place.</p>

<p>These four missteps in thinking are evidence that people aren’t thinking clearly about important matters. No one denies that some people experience what they perceive is a mismatch between their body and mind. Neither does anyone deny that such an experience is a serious condition. In fact, Christians recognize these people are valuable image-bearers of God who need our love, compassion, and care. Where we diverge from our secular-thinking friends (some of whom claim to be Christian) is their belief that God erred with their body, that their “inside” experience is inerrant, and that the solution lies with hormone treatment and radical cosmetic alterations.</p>

<p>The only hope for transgender individuals—and indeed for everyone—is not an external change, but an internal change. It’s not about a transformation of their body, but a transformation of their soul. Only the Great Physician can do that.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-transgender-people-fixing-god-s-mistakes-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-transgender-people-fixing-god-s-mistakes-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-transgender-people-fixing-god-s-mistakes-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The False Philosophy of Cancel Culture
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 01/11/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-false-philosophy-of-cancel-culture
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It used to be that when people differed on important issues, they engaged the ideas with facts and reasons. Those days are over. Welcome to the cancel culture.</p>

<p>To cancel someone means to silence them. It means to use power to deplatform them, to demonetize them, or even to get them fired from their jobs because their views are politically incorrect. Notice, it’s not just the <em>ideas</em> that get canceled and discarded, though; the <em>person</em> gets canceled and discarded, too.</p>

<p>Put simply, cancel culture is a culture of bullying. What starts with a difference of <em>ideas</em> ends with a willful public destruction of other <em>human beings</em>. Those who claimed to be the ones bullied have now become the bullies themselves, all because of a shift of power.</p>

<p>Power is the critical concept, here. Cancel culture is based on the assumption that power—not truth—is the only way to drive cultural change. Change the group in power, and change the culture. On this view, everything is a power play. Ultimately, group power plays result in the loss of individual freedom and liberty—canceling, in other words.</p>

<p>The cancel culture philosophy is built on the idea that power shapes all social relationships. If I have power over you, I can force you to do my will rather than work with you towards a negotiated solution. In other words, I can bully you into submission. That’s not what’s most disheartening, though.</p>

<p>Tragically, this approach also assaults individual identity. Here’s how. The group-power mentality reduces people to mere mouthpieces of the larger group. Their personal identity gets absorbed by the collective that now defines them. That’s called identity politics.</p>

<p>In that view, dialogues between people get reduced to power struggles between the groups they belong to. As a result, there’s a breakdown of rational discussion and reasonable negotiation. The opportunity for any peaceful settlement is lost. Power demands, “Capitulate, or else.”</p>

<p>Cancel culture is the logical outcome of this philosophy because <em>you</em> don’t engage with<em> your</em> opponents, because there’s no <em>you</em>, only your group exercising power in the interest of the group’s identity. The results? Instead of optimism, there’s cynicism, narcissism instead of selflessness, silence instead of discussion.</p>

<p>Power is the fundamental motivation behind cancel culture.</p>

<p>Cancel culture was birthed out of this philosophy. It gives malevolent Machiavellians the opportunity to bully in a manner that destroys reputations. This is the logical consequence of a society that claims power is the fundamental force of social change. And let’s not mistake this as merely a critique of a contemporary philosophy. It’s much more than that.</p>

<p>We are in a battle over the fundamental reality of what it means to be human. Cancel culture defines and judges you by the group you belong to—and also by your latest mistake. This is a false story of reality and needs to be countered with the true story.</p>

<p>The true story is that each person is unique and special, made in the image of God. Being made in that image gives transcendent value and worth to each individual, regardless of what group we belong to and what mistakes we have made.</p>

<p>More power isn’t the solution. It’s the opposite. The struggle isn’t over power. The struggle is with sin. Paul said, “For Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). The solution to the problem is found in our weakness as we find strength in Jesus.</p>

<p>The man from Nazareth put an axe to the philosophical roots of cancel culture. Jesus welcomes “canceled” people as disciples. Where the culture responds with guilt and shame, Jesus responds with forgiveness and honor.</p>

<p>Jesus transforms the shame-ridden identity of cancel culture’s victims into honor-laden individuals who stand in victory. Jesus replaces temporal acceptance by the hypocrites of the culture with transcendent acceptance by the God of the universe. Remember, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1–2).</p>

<p>More and more people are searching for a rehabilitated identity. Cancel culture is incapable of giving it to them. Jesus can, though. It’s to Jesus we point the victims.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-false-philosophy-of-cancel-culture" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-false-philosophy-of-cancel-culture" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-false-philosophy-of-cancel-culture" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Agree to Use Preferred Names but Not Preferred Pronouns?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/20/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-agree-to-use-preferred-names-but-not-preferred-pronouns-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the past, we’ve made a distinction here at Stand to Reason between agreeing to use a person’s preferred name vs. using his preferred pronouns. If we’re concerned about encouraging and participating in a worldview that’s false and harmful—a worldview where human beings create themselves and their own reality rather than conform themselves to God’s reality—why would we agree to one but not the other?</p>

<p>Keep in mind that a person’s sex is something we can see on our own as an unchanging fact of reality, while names are the kind of thing we can’t see on our own as an aspect of reality. In fact, the only way we can know a person’s name is if he tells us, <em>because names are chosen by individuals according to preference</em> (whether by himself or by his parents).</p>

<p>In other words, a name is generally the kind of thing decided on by preference. Sex is the kind of thing decided on by reality, regardless of preference.</p>

<p>In light of that distinction, this is what it comes down to: <strong>I can abide by the preferences of others when it’s a matter <em>determined</em> by preference, but not when it’s a matter determined by objective reality.</strong> The sticking point, here, when it comes to using preferred pronouns vs. using preferred names, is that we won’t agree to confuse matters of objective truth with matters of subjective preference.</p>

<p>In this culture, this can sound cold and unfeeling, but it’s actually the opposite. If we know that ignoring or even fighting against reality leads to destruction and pain in people’s lives, then it’s not an act of love to participate in promoting that false worldview by speaking false things. While it might <em>feel</em> more pleasant to do what people are asking of you, <a href="https://www.str.org/w/true-compassion-is-determined-by-the-mind-not-by-feelings?p_l_back_url=%2Fna%3Fq%3Dgood-ambassadors-lead-with-compassion">true compassion is determined by the mind, not by feelings</a>. Sometimes the kindest thing you can do for someone else is the thing that makes <em>you</em> feel the worst.</p>

<p>And beyond compassion, there is something even more foundational at stake: truth. <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-daily-prayer-for-this-cultural-moment">The loss of care for truth in our society</a> is the cause of many evils. When we speak the truth (in love!), even to our own hurt, we honor God because he is truth. When we speak the truth, we not only do good by promoting something true, but we also do something that’s good <em>in itself</em> simply by speaking it. Truth isn’t merely a means to an end; it’s something that’s valued by God in itself because it reflects his character. And when we speak a lie, we not only cause harm by promoting something false, but we also hurt our own souls simply by speaking it because it reflects the father of lies.</p>

<p>None of this is easy. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. There will be pain, and we’ll all make mistakes as we try to navigate this worldview divide. All we can do is keep moving forward with love for truth, true compassion, and grace for ourselves and others.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-agree-to-use-preferred-names-but-not-preferred-pronouns-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-agree-to-use-preferred-names-but-not-preferred-pronouns-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-agree-to-use-preferred-names-but-not-preferred-pronouns-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Getting “Political”—Vice or Christian Virtue?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/getting-political-vice-or-christian-virtue-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In 1925, state legislatures began passing laws against teaching evolution. The ACLU stepped in to test the law in Tennessee using high school teacher John Scopes. William Jennings Bryan was the spokesman for the fundamentalists; the ACLU had Clarence Darrow for the teacher’s defense.</p>

<p>The infamous “Monkey Trial” was a watershed event for Christians. Scopes and the ACLU lost the court battle proper, but it was an empty victory for believers. They abandoned the field and took refuge inside the walls of the church. Choosing cultural monasticism rather than hard-thinking engagement, they left the public square to the secularists. The disciples of Dewey, Marx, Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Skinner and a host of others replaced the disciples of Jesus Christ in the public dialogue.</p>

<p>Christians were the founding fathers of the intellectual community in America, but in the years that followed, Christianity lost its claim as a player in the marketplace of ideas. As Os Guinness has pointed out, Christians had not been out-thought. They just had not been around when the thinking was being done.</p>

<p>In the latter part of the 20th century, that began to change. Sharp, fair-minded thinkers like Francis Schaeffer, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Chuck Colson—to name just a few—slowly chipped away at the stranglehold non-Christians had on the world of ideas.</p>

<p>Now, nearly 100 years after Scopes, we’re on the cusp of another watershed. On one side is a public square crying out for answers on a host of critical issues while the culture heats up against virtually everything Christianity stands for. On the other side is the church—also crying out for answers—tempted to withdraw into the cultural and intellectual monastery that provided sanctuary for Christians in the past but also ensured their cultural impotence.</p>

<p>Will the followers of Christ continue to thoughtfully engage—with truth and grace—the critical ideas in culture, or will we retreat from the public square again and take refuge behind the walls of our churches?</p>

<p>The pressure to withdraw comes from two sources: inside, by the church, and outside, by the culture. Since retreat leaves the flock without an adequate shepherd for the Body and leaves the church without an appropriate voice in the world, I will speak to those two concerns first.</p>

<h2>No Hint of Politics?</h2>

<p>It’s not only the culture that expresses alarm when Christians stir from their slumber and begin to make a difference in the public square. Some Christians object, too. I once heard an evangelical leader offer this stern warning: “There should not be even a hint of anything political in our public discourse.”</p>

<p>His principal concern seemed to be that political dallying distracts the church from its main mission. It keeps us from communicating the good news of the gospel. Further, it does no good to pass laws enforcing Christian morality since civic virtue won’t save anyone. We succeed only in sanitizing sin. Transformed society is the result of transformed people, those changed from the inside out, not from the outside in.</p>

<p>This notion of political passivity has force because it properly emphasizes two things that are true. One, the gospel has supernatural power to change lives. Two, no one can please God through mere civic virtue. Some Christians wrongly conclude, however, that cultural engagement in the form of political advocacy is therefore a wasted effort.</p>

<p>This approach may sound right in some spiritual circles, but it’s simply wrong-headed. The church’s inability to address pressing cultural issues can weaken the body of Christ and be devastating to the public good.</p>

<h2>The First Function of Law: Changed Behavior</h2>

<p>First, this view misunderstands the principal role of law. The primary purpose of law is not to change hearts. Laws are meant to change behavior, and they accomplish that task well.</p>

<p>Peter tells us that those who govern are given by God for “the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Pet. 2:14). Paul teaches that ruling authority “is a minister of God to you for good...[and] an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13: 3–4). Proverbs reminds us, “The king gives stability to the land by justice” (29:4), and, “The execution of justice is joy for the righteous” (21:15).</p>

<p>Scriptural teaching is clear: God intends government to use law to enforce morality. Biblically informed and culturally active people of God, however, are essential to that task.</p>

<p>The concepts of good and evil that Paul talks about—and the principle of justice that grounds good government—can be twisted or subverted by people in power. If the church doesn’t stand in the gap giving moral substance to the words “good” and “evil,” then nothing prevents political leadership from reversing the definitions, praising evil and punishing good. Tragically, it’s happening in our midst.</p>

<h2>The Second Function of Law: Changed hearts</h2>

<p>Second, a properly informed set of laws, equitably and consistently enforced, <em>can</em> change the heart. David Lewellyn, founder and former president of the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom, observed: “Laws begin by imposing norms of conduct, but conclude by teaching morality and values. As these values are inculcated, the coercive power of law recedes as its moral force rises to govern the conduct of the people.”<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[1]</a></p>

<p>How does this happen? A sound moral code—one that’s consonant with the internal capacity for moral development that God has given each person (Rom. 2:15)—tutors us by adding clarity to our innate sense of right and wrong.</p>

<p>The same process also works in reverse, Lewellyn points out. Because Christians have been silent, “debased public standards which are destructive of life, faith, family, personal morality, and social responsibility are now protected by new, coercive laws and constitutional principles.”<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[2]</a></p>

<p>Simply put, bad laws corrupt good morals. People are tempted to think that if certain conduct is <em>legal</em>, it must be <em>ethical</em>. Conversely, good laws can have a salutary effect on public convictions. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, caused a “decisive shift of opinion in the United States in regard to racial segregation.”<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[3]</a></p>

<p>When someone tells me that laws can never change a fallen heart, I ask them if they apply that philosophy to their children. Does the moral training of our children consist merely of preaching the gospel to them? Wouldn’t we consider it unconscionable to neglect a child’s moral instruction with the excuse that laws can never change a child’s rebellious heart? Don’t we give them rules to obey, then praise or punish them according to their conduct?</p>

<p>Moral instruction can never save our children, of course, but it does engender virtue in them. Proverbs instructs us to “train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (22:6). We properly expect that a faithful and judicious application of moral guidelines—with appropriate rewards and punishments for behavior—will develop habits of virtue in our kids.</p>

<p>If this works to build the moral substance of our children, why can’t it work to build the moral substance of our citizens? If it works to raise a family, why can’t it work to raise a collection of families known as a community? Why do we believe in the transforming power of moral instruction at home, but consider it powerless to inform the moral conscience of a country made up of families just like ours? Same people. Same laws. Same rules. Same process.</p>

<h2>Pinning Down “Politics”</h2>

<p>Third, the term “politics” is vague. What, specifically, does it mean to say that Christians should avoid politics? Initially, it meant churches shouldn’t campaign for a particular candidate. “Keep religion in the domain of theology, morality, and family relationships,” we were told, “and leave politics to the pros.”</p>

<p>Little by little, though, more things have been included under the broad rubric of “politics.” One by one, the secularists co-opt critical issues, call them political, and chase us off the playing field.</p>

<p>Case in point. Recently, I was chatting with my teenage daughter about the efficacy of the Covid vaccine, when she cut me off. “Dad, I don’t want to hear about politics,” she said. “Honey,” I told her, “I’m not talking about <em>politics</em>. I’m talking about <em>medicine</em>.” See what I mean?</p>

<p>Medicine isn’t the only area that’s political now. A host of moral issues have been co-opted by culture, too. Christians have been told, “Abortion is not merely a moral issue anymore. It’s a secular matter. Stay away.”</p>

<p>“What about alternative&nbsp;sexualities like lesbianism, homosexuality, man-boy ‘love,’ and incest?”</p>

<p>“That’s ours, too.”</p>

<p>“Same-sex marriage?”</p>

<p>“A civic concern. No place for the church.”</p>

<p>“Family issues like divorce, child support, reproductive technologies, and the education of our children?”</p>

<p>“Back off.”</p>

<p>“Stewardship of the environment, care for the poor, race relations, sex education, birth control, pornography?”</p>

<p>“All politics.”</p>

<p>Notice the outcome. When Christians follow a policy of “no politics,” it’s easy to silence the moral voice of the church. Simply label any issue “political,” and believers must wave the white flag. Many have dutifully complied. This policy is tantamount to surrendering our voice in the public square.</p>

<p>We’re free to wage our parochial theological wars behind the closed doors of the church, but we can speak of nothing that—in the minds of those we’re trying to reach—has anything to do with cultural issues in the real world. Is it any wonder our faith is called irrelevant?</p>

<p>Ironically, the church is still being blamed for the moral silence of its past, including its uneven response to the abolitionist movement of the 19th century and the civil rights movement of the 20th century. Christian inactivity in the face of injustice didn’t communicate purity, but rather suggested approval of slavery and racial prejudice. Our past unwillingness to be involved in politics has been a blight on Christianity ever since.</p>

<h2>Starving Sheep and the Naked Public Square</h2>

<p>I have two final concerns for the church regarding the temptation for Christians to retreat from “politics.” First, who informs the flock when it comes to cultural challenges?</p>

<p>Followers of Jesus are getting hammered from every direction, and they do not know how to respond. They face issues of racial unrest, gender identity chaos, sexual mayhem, abortion “rights,” a mélange of marriage options, etc., etc.—volley after volley of “flaming arrows” fired at their faith, and our young people are especially vulnerable.</p>

<p>Who will help them? Who will feed our flock on the critical moral matters—all “political” now—the culture will not allow them to avoid? Who will educate our Christian communities on how a robust Christian worldview speaks to these issues? Who if not us? The press? The media? The public schools? Planned Parenthood? Hollywood? The LGBTQ crowd? They are all happily waiting in the wings, eager to fill the void.</p>

<p>It is the shepherd’s task to feed the sheep, and silence on these matters leaves Christians starving for answers. Voddie Baucham writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As a pastor, I have a responsibility to my flock. If those for whose souls I care (Heb. 13:17) want help thinking through these issues, I am obligated to them. I have a duty to walk them through issues like these to the best of my ability, and with sensitivity to their particular needs.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[4]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s bad enough when Twitter, Facebook, and Google silence us. Now, though, we are at risk of canceling ourselves. If this happens, we will not only become irrelevant to the world. We will also become irrelevant to our own people.</p>

<p>Here is my second concern about Christians’ reticence. Who will influence culture for the good, the true, and the beautiful if not believers?</p>

<p>“Gospel first. Changed hearts change culture, and only the gospel can transform the heart.” Agreed, but what next? The world is changed when Christians actively work to change it. Change doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens when transformed people roll up their sleeves and plunge in, employing means appropriate to their gifts and their stations in life.</p>

<p>William Wilberforce, for example, in the wake of his conversion at age 26, committed before God to pursue two great goals: the suppression of the slave trade and what he called the “reformation of manners”—that is, elevating the moral fabric of the public square.</p>

<p>A Member of Parliament at age 21, Wilberforce employed his political influence to pursue both tasks. He understood that his Christian duty was not only to God, but also to his neighbors—his fellow citizens—a duty that needed to be fulfilled in practical ways. As a result of his tireless efforts, the British slave trade ended in 1807, and slavery was finally abolished in 1833, just days before his death.</p>

<p>During the struggle, though, Wilberforce was opposed by many of his peers. “Things have come to a pretty pass,” Lord Melborne lamented, “when religion is allowed to invade public life.” Yet how would abolition have fared if Wilberforce had succumbed to that kind of thinking? His argument to end slavery <em>just was</em> a religious one—that all human beings, regardless of skin color, were made in the image of God.</p>

<p>The lesson is clear: Changed people only change the world if they actively, artfully, and thoughtfully engage the world on the world’s own turf. Wilberforce understood this. So did Martin Luther King, Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Chuck Colson, and a host of others.</p>

<p>Avoidance of “politics” not only starves sheep who are hungry for answers, it also leaves the public square naked of godly influence. Our communities will be changed only if Christ’s disciples <em>understand</em> the destructive ideas of a fallen world then work hard to <em>reverse their effects</em>.</p>

<p>That’s what it means to be salt and light. First-century Christians had no suffrage. We do. We can make a difference with our votes, with our voices, and with our vocations in ways that were not available to early believers.</p>

<p>The pressure to stay sidelined not only comes from within the church. There is also significant pressure on Christians to retreat coming from without by a public that is misinformed about the Constitution.</p>

<h2>The “Separation” of Church and State</h2>

<p>The understanding of separation of church and state many have—the view that the state is thoroughly secular and not to be influenced by religious values, especially Christian—was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought. Clearly, the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from every facet of public life. They were friendly to Christianity and encouraged its public practice and expression.</p>

<p>It wasn’t until 1947 that the United States Supreme Court first used the concept of separation to isolate government from religion.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[5]</a> In <em>Everson v. Board of Education</em>, the court lifted a phrase from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut, ruling, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.... In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’”<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[6]</a></p>

<h2>The Infamous Danbury Letter</h2>

<p>The <em>Everson </em>decision, then, in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court, established Jefferson’s separation language as the normative guideline for understanding the First Amendment of the Constitution.</p>

<p>Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a member of the Constitutional Convention, though, and the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Where did it come from?</p>

<p>On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he used the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.” His note was meant to quell the fears of the Danbury congregation that was concerned that a national denomination would be established. Here is the text in question:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State.<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[7]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>What did Jefferson have in mind here? Is there an impregnable barrier erected by the founders<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[8]</a> that excludes religious-minded people from the political process, an ideological enmity between church and state?</p>

<h2>The First Amendment</h2>

<p>In contrast to the present confusion on separation, the First Amendment is startling in its clarity, offering no limit to the role of religious and moral conviction of individual citizens on public policy. It is worth reading often. Here it is:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Forgive me for stating the obvious: <em>The First Amendment restricts the government, not the people.</em> Jefferson’s wall is a one-way wall. Any religious person, any religious organization, any religious conviction has its place in the public debate. It’s called pluralism, in the classic sense of the word.</p>

<p>Notice there are not two distinct provisions here, but one. Non-establishment has no purpose by itself. Freedom of religion is the goal, and non-establishment is the means. The only way to have true freedom of religion is to keep government out of religion’s affairs. This provides for what Steven Monsma calls “positive neutrality.” This view “defines religious freedom in terms of a governmental neutrality toward religion in which no religion is favored over any other, and neither religion nor secularism is favored over each other.”<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[9]</a></p>

<p>The First Amendment was rewritten twelve times to make clear its intent. The concept set forth in the Bill of Rights is “non-establishment,” not isolation. We should strike the “separation” language from our First-Amendment vocabulary, legal or otherwise.<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[10]</a></p>

<h2>Calling a Vice a Virtue</h2>

<p>Followers of Christ should not be suppressed from without by a notion of “separation” that’s completely foreign to the Constitution. Neither should they be silenced from within by misguided piety.</p>

<p>The church can never replace the work of the cross with civic works of righteousness. This is beyond dispute. The goal of Christian political activity, though, is not to build civic righteousness to make a nation acceptable to God. It’s to ensure a just society.</p>

<p>Christian author Philip Yancey put it this way: “We have no mandate to ‘Christianize’ the United States—an impossible goal in any case. Yet Christians can work simultaneously toward a different goal, the ‘moralization’ of society. We can help tether the values and even the laws of a society to some basis in transcendence.”<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title="">[11]</a></p>

<p>The myth of political passivity unwittingly makes a Christian virtue out of the vice of negligence. When we ignore our obligation to morally instruct the nation merely because someone labels an issue “political,” then it won’t be long before the country teems with injustice.</p>

<p>We are already well down that road.</p>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[1]</a> David Llewellyn, “The Trinity-Greenleaf Vision,” SGU-Trinity Announcement Dinner, 20/11/95, 4.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[2]</a> Ibid.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[3]</a> Hadley Arkes, <em>First Things</em> (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986), 27 (footnote).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[4]</a> Voddie Baucham, “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/thoughts-on-ferguson/">Thoughts on Ferguson</a>,” <em>The Gospel Coalition</em>, 11/26/14.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[5]</a>The phrase was mentioned once before in the discourse of the Court in the 1878 case of <em>Reynolds v. The United States</em> when Mormons attempted an unsuccessful defense of polygamy based on the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. The non-establishment clause protected Mormon beliefs, not Mormon practices (e.g., polygamy). This conduct was still proscribed by prevailing morality, specifically Christian morality.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[6]</a><em> Everson v. Board of Education</em>, 330 U.S at 15–16 (1947).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[7]</a> Thomas Jefferson, <em>Jefferson Writings</em>, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), 510, January 1, 1802.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn8">
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[8]</a>Note that the word “founders” is not capitalized here because I’m not referring to the 55 members of the Constitutional Convention, but to the broader group responsible for the passage of the Bill of Rights.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn9">
<p>&nbsp;[9]Stephen Monsma, <em>Positive Neutrality—Letting Religious Freedom Ring</em>, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 203.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn10">
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[10]</a> Find an excellent, concise treatment of this issue in Robert George’s “<a href="https://www.prageru.com/video/is-americas-government-secular">Is America’s Government Secular?</a>” at Prageru.com.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn11">
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[11]</a> Philip Yancey, “<a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1996/october7/6tb136.html">The Other Great Commission</a>,” <em>Christianity Today</em>, 7/10/96.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgetting-political-vice-or-christian-virtue-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgetting-political-vice-or-christian-virtue-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgetting-political-vice-or-christian-virtue-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Verse That Illustrates Three Interpretive Principles
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/03/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-verse-that-illustrates-three-interpretive-principles
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s one topic I wish every believer would study. Even though I’m an apologist and have taught apologetics for nearly two decades, it has nothing to do with defending the faith (though it can help with that). It’s called hermeneutics, but it’s more commonly known as biblical interpretation. If I could, I would require every believer in the global church to learn its principles.</p>

<p>Now, I can almost hear the pushback. Hermen-what? It sounds like a dry, academic subject that has no practical value for my walk with God. It’s probably just for pastors, people say.</p>

<p>That’s just not true. Hermeneutics is an exciting topic because it helps us believers better understand what God is saying to us. You’re going read the Bible between now and the day you die, and what you read will define your theology, affect major life decisions, and determine what you teach others according to what you think it says. Hermeneutics is critical because it’s the connection between God’s Word and its application. The single most influential class I took in seminary was hermeneutics. It did more to enrich my knowledge and understanding of God’s Word than any other subject.</p>

<p>Let me illustrate how three key principles of biblical interpretation can help you understand a commonly misunderstood passage. It’s based on a verse that has fueled numerous skeptics to challenge the integrity of Jesus.</p>

<p>They claim that Jesus commands his followers to round up those who reject him and kill them. They cite <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019%3A27&amp;version=NIV">Luke 19:27</a> where Jesus says, “Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” That doesn’t sound like the tender and compassionate Jesus we all know. What’s going on? The problem is entirely a hermeneutical mistake—people are misinterpreting the passage. Consider how applying the three keys to biblical interpretation clarifies the meaning and application of this passage.</p>

<p><strong>Context</strong>: The first key to interpreting any biblical passage is to read the verses before and after the passage in question. The more you read, the better. That’s why we say at Stand to Reason, “Never read a Bible verse.” Always read the whole paragraph, the chapter, or the whole book. When this verse is read in context, you discover that Jesus is telling a parable about a nobleman and his servants. Parables, of course, are fictitious stories intended to illustrate a point. This story is about a nobleman who leaves ten minas with his ten servants and departs to be crowned king. His servants hate him, though, and send an envoy to petition against his appointment. After he’s crowned king, he returns to judge his servants on how they’ve invested his money. After rewarding the faithful servants, he punishes the unfaithful ones and then orders his enemies to be killed.</p>

<p>Notice that when you read the Luke passage in its context, you discover that it’s the king in the story—not Jesus—who issues the command to kill his enemies. Though this clarifies the contextual concern, it raises another question: Why does Jesus identify himself as the king in the parable? Does that mean he was ordering his followers to round up his enemies and have them executed? To answer that question, we need to consider two additional keys to interpreting a biblical text.</p>

<p><strong>History</strong>: The second key to interpreting a biblical passage is to discover any pertinent historical information that sheds light on the passage. It turns out that Jesus includes the king’s execution order in the parable because it was a reference to a historical event. After King Herod died, his son Archelaus went to Rome to claim kingship over Judea. The Jews sent an envoy to petition against his appointment because they opposed his rule. Nevertheless, Archelaus was crowned king. He returned to Judea and ordered the killings of those who were against him.</p>

<p>Jesus references this historical event in his parable. He is <em>not</em> commanding his followers to round up his enemies and kill them, though. Rather, he is referencing a recent event his audience was aware of—Archelaus’ return and his order to execute his enemies. Recognizing the history behind this passage helps to explain why Jesus included the execution order in his parable. But one final interpretive key will help clarify Jesus’ message.</p>

<p><strong>Genre</strong>: The third key to interpreting a biblical passage is to determine its literary style (genre) and apply the appropriate interpretive principles. Although this passage is found in a Gospel (which is a genre), the subgenre is parable. Jesus preferred to use parables to teach his lessons. That’s why, when you read a parable, always ask, <em>what’s the point?</em> In this case, Jesus is telling his followers that he, like the nobleman, will depart and leave them with the responsibility to be faithful. Eventually, he will return and, when he does, will exact judgment on his enemies (Rev. 19:11–16). His judgment, however, will be just, and he will not ask his followers to carry it out but will do it himself.</p>

<p>Jesus, then, <em>does</em> identify himself as the nobleman in the story. Although he’s not ordering us to round up and kill his enemies, there’s still a sober take-home message. While Jesus is away, we’re responsible for investing our resources for his kingdom. When he returns, he will hold us accountable for what we did with what we were given and judge those who did not trust him as their king.</p>

<p>Notice how considering the context, history, and genre helps to neutralize the skeptics’ challenge and clarify the meaning and application of this passage. If this kind of elucidation is possible with just one verse, imagine how enlightening it would be to apply this kind of careful study to every passage we read in Scripture. God’s Word is Holy Spirit-inspired writ that he gave us to help conform us to the image of his Son. He is amazing!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-verse-that-illustrates-three-interpretive-principles" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-verse-that-illustrates-three-interpretive-principles" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-verse-that-illustrates-three-interpretive-principles" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Warning about Bible Verses
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/01/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-warning-about-bible-verses
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Let me offer you a warning that will vastly improve your ability to understand Scripture—<em>if</em> you heed it. It’s an insight for every person who has ever asked, “How does this verse apply to my life?” Here it is: <em>There are no verses in the Bible.</em> Nope. Not one. At least, not in the original, and that’s the Bible that matters.</p>

<p>Let’s start with a definition. A “verse” is a passage of Scripture distinguished from other passages of Scripture by a numerical address (e.g., John 3:16, famously). Those numbers, though, were not in the original. They were inserted sixteen centuries later in 1551 by French printer Robert Stephanus.</p>

<p>There’s good news and bad news about verse numbers. The good news is, they make it easier to find stuff. The bad news is, they make it easier to get stuff wrong. I have two pieces of advice to help you avoid that pitfall.</p>

<p>First, beware the numbers. Verse numbers tempt readers to take a section of Scripture as a collection of discrete statements having meaning and application in isolation from the larger context (“How does <em>this verse</em> apply to my life?”).</p>

<p>Take a verse like “The Lord will fight for you while you keep silent” (Ex. 14:14). It wasn’t meant by Moses to be a stand-alone promise, though many Christians have used it that way. Sure, the Exodus <em>narrative</em> has plenty of relevance for New Testament believers, but this <em>individual verse</em> has no application to any Christian, only to trapped Hebrews with their backs up against the Red Sea. It’s not our promise.</p>

<p>In fact, standing on their own, most “verses” have no application to anyone’s life, Christian or Hebrew. None. Why, then, are they in the Bible? Because much of the time, the precise point of a passage cannot be found in a single verse, but in the role that verse plays in relationship to the verses above and below it.</p>

<p>Remember, the <em>verse</em>, as such, doesn’t exist. Rather, the <em>sentence</em> exists as part of a <em>passage</em> that <em>might</em> apply to your circumstances. It makes no sense, though, to isolate a line from its context and ask, “How can I stick this sentence into my life?”</p>

<p>Here’s why. God did not give us 66 books of short, pithy statements to be applied piecemeal to our situation (with a few exceptions—e.g., much of Proverbs). Most of Scripture is narrative—story. Most of the rest—the New Testament epistles, for example—is argument (making a case) or instruction (teaching us how to live). Each of these—narrative, argument, instruction—trades on a <em>flow of thought</em> in the passage made more clear by reading the smaller parts in light of the larger part.</p>

<p>The flow of a <em>chapter</em> helps us understand a <em>paragraph’s</em> role in the larger narrative. Paragraphs help us understand what a <em>sentence</em> means. Sentences help us understand individual <em>word</em> meanings. The account <em>taken as a whole</em>, then, has instructive value, not necessarily a verse in the account standing on its own. That’s why, at STR, we follow the rule “Never read <em>a</em> Bible verse.” Instead, always read a paragraph, at least, before drawing conclusions about a single verse’s meaning.</p>

<p>So first, beware the numbers. Second, beware the headings. The same warning about verses applies to captions added by Bible editors (and to chapter breaks, too, by the way). Headings can be helpful, but they can also be harmful when a caption severs the link between two sections of a passage that are critical to understanding the flow of thought.</p>

<p>For example, when Jesus’ teaching on the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30–37­) is isolated from the verses above the heading, Jesus’ main point is completely lost. The parable of the Samaritan is not a morality tale, but an indictment of self-justification (note verse 29). The caption severs vital verses from the narrative, significantly altering the meaning.</p>

<p>So, beware. A really good idea five centuries ago can have a bad consequence today when it sabotages your efforts to understand Scripture properly. I suggest you ignore the artificial divisions (verses, headings, chapters) and focus on the larger narrative, argument, or instruction.</p>

<p>Start big, then get small. Look at the larger flow of thought, then zoom in on the particulars. It will save you a mountain of confusion—if you heed it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-warning-about-bible-verses" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-warning-about-bible-verses" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-warning-about-bible-verses" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Transgender Thoughts Inerrant?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/25/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-transgender-thoughts-inerrant-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>No doubt you’ve heard the phrase “On second thought.” It’s common to say after you’ve reflected on an idea and now hold a different opinion. Consequently, you might change your course of action. That’s because our thoughts, beliefs, and internal states are not concrete. They’re part of our psychology. As a result, they can change and also be wrong. We can think twice about something and change our mind.</p>

<p>That’s why I’m often mystified by transgender people who believe their internal state accurately reflects what their body should be like. Why presume one’s internal psychological thinking is always correct?</p>

<p>Up until this recent moment in human history, if you thought your body didn’t match how you felt on the inside, the solution was to pursue counseling or therapy to change your internal states to match your external body. Not so today. If you have a male body, but believe you are female, today’s solution is to change your body to match <a href="https://www.str.org/w/instinct-is-man-s-new-moral-compass" rel="noopener" target="_blank">how you feel on the inside</a>.</p>

<p>But that presumes your beliefs—which are of a psychological nature—are correct. Indeed, the way I often hear people talk about themselves sounds like they believe their transgender ideation is inerrant. That’s strange. Although it’s hard to imagine how you could be wrong about what sex your body is, it seems quite possible you could be mistaken about your gender identity. Pro-transgender experts even tell us that gender identity fluctuates, sometimes even on a daily basis.</p>

<p>Actor <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2920533/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Keiynan Lonsdale</a>, when asked if he was gay, <a href="https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/keiynan-lonsdale-preferred-pronouns-tree-8477100/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">replied by saying</a>, “Now it just depends on the day. Sometimes I’m bisexual, sometimes I’m gay, sometimes I feel straight, sometimes I’m not anything. It doesn’t matter.”&nbsp;It seems irresponsible that anyone would decide to amputate a healthy sex organ based on a potentially shifting psychological state.</p>

<p>Scripture tells us that “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9). There’s a reason for that. Not only are our internal states shifting, but they’re often evil and wrong. There’s ample reason to question our thoughts, especially when we’re making life-altering decisions that can be irreversible.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-transgender-thoughts-inerrant-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-transgender-thoughts-inerrant-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-transgender-thoughts-inerrant-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Defending without Becoming Defensive
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Robby Lashua
date: 02/02/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/defending-without-becoming-defensive
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There is a difference between winning an argument and winning a person.</p>

<p>Of course, it’s easy to forget this in the middle of a tense conversation. Emotions are powerful when the stakes are high. I’ve had my share of emotionally intense talks about Jesus, and they’re rarely productive. Sometimes, they’re even destructive. Something’s missing.</p>

<p>This is where Paul can help us.</p>

<p>Paul’s method can be summed up in one word: persuasion. He believed persuasion could lead people to Christ. Apologetics is often defined as a defense of the faith. It’s a good definition but can lead to a bad mindset. How do we defend without becoming defensive? This is where we can learn from Paul.</p>

<p>Here are four takeaways.</p>

<p><em>First, persuasion happens on purpose</em>. Paul wanted to persuade Jews in Thessalonica of the gospel. We are told, “He went to them.” Did you catch that? He didn’t wait for others to come to him. He took the first step.</p>

<p>Some say defending our beliefs is only needed when we’re asked. First Peter 3:15 does say to defend our beliefs, but it does not say to <em>only</em> use apologetics when asked. Peter and Paul both purposely persuaded others with the good news. We, too, should defend our faith when asked but also be intentional about having persuasive conversations.</p>

<p><em>Second, persuasion involves reasoning together</em>. While Paul was in Corinth, “he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:4).</p>

<p>Thoughtful conversation, not heated conflict, was Paul’s method. If our goal were to win an argument, then rhetoric, clever speech, and passion would be our tools. However, real persuasion takes thoughtful discussion. Our goal is to win people, not arguments.</p>

<p>Sadly, too often, conversations with others turn from trying to convince to trying to conquer. It’s easy to get caught up in a battle of wits and adopt a “win at all costs” mentality. However, great damage can happen if we use apologetics as a weapon to win. This mentality doesn’t persuade people; it irritates them. Instead of leading people to accept the gospel, we lead them to resent it.</p>

<p>Reasoning together requires dialogue—listening as well as speaking—and keeping a level head. This approach is inviting because people like to feel that their beliefs have been heard and understood. Reasoning, then, consists of thoughtful points packaged in warm conversation. Don’t allow your emotions to hijack your discussions.</p>

<p><em>Third, persuasion takes time.</em> When Paul is on trial before King Agrippa (Acts 26), he uses the opportunity to share his story and the good news of Jesus. Agrippa responds, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” Paul responds, “I would wish to God, that <em>whether in a short or long time</em>, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains.”</p>

<p>While imprisoned in Rome, Paul “was <em>explaining</em> to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and <em>trying to persuade them</em> concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, <em>from morning until evening</em>” (Acts 28:23).</p>

<p>These examples teach us that persuasion doesn’t happen quickly. People need time to think about the gospel message before they accept it. One of the most gracious things we can do in our conversations is give people time to ponder what we have presented. We don’t need to quickly “close the deal” with a slick presentation of the gospel. Persuasion is a slow play, so take your time.</p>

<p><em>Finally, persuasion takes courage.</em> Paul got himself in some tough situations. He went on trial before King Agrippa, faced an angry mob in Ephesus, was taken before Gallio, and was imprisoned in Rome. Through all those hardships, Paul showed tremendous courage and kept persuading people of the gospel.</p>

<p>What most impresses me about Paul’s courage isn’t his ability to withstand hostility. Paul’s true courage is shown in his gentleness and respect toward those hostile toward him. Paul doesn’t disrespect or demean people even when he’s mistreated. Why? Because his goal is to persuade them even though they are hostile.</p>

<p>Apologetics done in this way is courageous because it recognizes that people aren’t our enemies; false ideas are. Treating others poorly doesn’t convince them to embrace our beliefs. We must courageously reject the worldly methods of hostility and contempt and respectfully seek to persuade those we hope to lead to the truth.</p>

<p>When you feel your emotions beginning to take over important conversations, stop and take a deep breath. Remind yourself of your goal: to persuade and to win the person, not the argument. Take the initiative, reason with them, take your time, and be courageous. That’s what Paul did, and it’s a good formula for you and me, too.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdefending-without-becoming-defensive" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdefending-without-becoming-defensive" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdefending-without-becoming-defensive" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Simple Way to Know and Be Shaped by Your Bible
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/08/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-simple-way-to-know-and-be-shaped-by-your-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Do you know entire series of novels—hundreds or even thousands of pages—like the back of your hand? Do you know all the characters in <em>The Chronicles of Narnia</em> (1,632 pages), <em>Harry Potter</em> (4,167 pages), or <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> (1,536)? Could you recite the story, recall all the plot twists, and discuss the motivations of its heroes and villains in detail? Have you been shaped by the beauty you saw there, inspired by the characters, or simply enjoyed the time you’ve spent with it? Have you seen the things around you in light of that story, such that bits of it returned to your mind automatically when you faced similar situations? Have your actions in life been affected by it?</p>

<p>Why do you know that series so deeply? Because you intentionally studied it? You took classes on it? There were tests? No. Because you read it. Repeatedly. <em>That’s</em> how it became part of you.</p>

<p>That was the eye-opening insight I had several years ago about the Bible—my “aha” moment. If simply reading and listening to my beloved novels over and over (series that were <em>at least</em> as long as the Bible) with interest, love, and anticipation caused me to know them inside and out, then why would the Bible be any different? In fact, why wouldn’t simply reading the Bible (as I had these other books) have an even <em>greater</em> effect on my mind and soul as the inspired Word of God, something the Holy Spirit actively works through?</p>

<p>I had never <em>studied</em> any of these novels. I had never intentionally set out to learn all the details. Yet I knew them. That’s when I realized that the key to making the Bible part of me was the same key that made the Narnia series part of me: reading through it. Repeatedly.</p>

<p>If your Bible intimidates you, consider this question: Do you know a series of novels well? Then why look at your ability to know the Bible any differently? Why see it as overwhelming or even insurmountable? Why assume <em>you</em> could never read it—not even once, and certainly not over and over? Here’s the reality: A basic <em>ESV Thinline Bible</em> is only 1,120 pages. Even the <em>ESV Reader’s Bible</em>, which is formatted <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Readers-Bible-Cloth-Permanent-Slipcase/dp/1433553473/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2MRCAM4CYM3K0&amp;keywords=esv+readers+bible&amp;qid=1643835560&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=esv+read%2Cstripbooks%2C202&amp;sr=1-2">like a regular book</a> (single column, larger font, no verse numbers or headings, etc.), is only 3,364 pages—<em>still</em> shorter than <em>Harry Potter</em>!</p>

<p>Just imagine what would happen if you began immersing yourself in the Bible as you have these other series. Simply by reading through it over and over as you would any cherished book, you would come to <em>know</em> it. Your understanding would increase exponentially. Your familiarity would foster love not just of the Bible, but more importantly, of God himself as who he is and what he’s done seeps into your very bones. This, in turn, would change <em>you</em>.</p>

<p>If you have ever come to know another series in a deep way, you already know this kind of knowledge and shaping of your soul by simply reading a book over and over is possible. Stop putting pressure on yourself to read your Bible while taking particular notes or studying particular commentaries each and every time. Learn <a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HP31VF0D1R1R&amp;keywords=how+to+read+the+bible+for+all+its+worth&amp;qid=1644282179&amp;sprefix=how+to+read+the%2Caps%2C156&amp;sr=8-1">the basics of how to understand the Bible</a>, and then just start reading! Yes, there will be <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible">a time and a place</a> for commentaries—we can always deepen our understanding by learning from others—and notes will come organically as your insights grow. You can still focus on shorter passages at times, enter into intentional study, <a href="https://www.str.org/w/tips-for-memorizing-a-book-of-the-bible">memorize</a>, and take classes. All of these things are also valuable. But for now, <a href="https://www.str.org/w/you-want-to-be-a-good-apologist-">just start reading</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-simple-way-to-know-and-be-shaped-by-your-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-simple-way-to-know-and-be-shaped-by-your-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-simple-way-to-know-and-be-shaped-by-your-bible" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Natasha Crain Can Help You Be Faithfully Different
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/09/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/natasha-crain-can-help-you-be-faithfully-different
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Natasha Crain’s new book, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Faithfully-Different-Regaining-Biblical-Clarity/dp/0736984291/ref=asc_df_0736984291/?tag=hyprod-20&amp;linkCode=df0&amp;hvadid=525300323189&amp;hvpos=&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=4945243180925135452&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=9030970&amp;hvtargid=pla-1438721964172&amp;psc=1">Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture</a></em>, was written to help believers understand and respond to the worldview divide between Christians and the culture—an important and needed task given what we’re currently facing as Christians. As Natasha explains (and backs up with data) at the beginning of the book:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Those who hold to a biblical worldview are now a shrinking minority in a secular culture, and that fact has significant (and often unrealized) implications for what it means to be faithful today. We need to regain clarity on how to respond, both for the sake of our own relationship with the Lord and for our ability to be a witness to others.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In light of the situation we find ourselves in, the question she sets out to answer in <em>Faithfully Different</em> is this: “How can we best be faithful to our calling in a world where it will <em>never</em> be normal to be a Christian—and in a culture where it’s becoming less and less so?” She proceeds to outline the foundational ideas of our culture that are currently shaping every area of our lives. This can be eye-opening for those Christians (likely, most!) who have never stopped to think deeply about the culture in this way. I suspect it will lead to many “aha!” moments on the part of the readers as Natasha pulls all of the secular pieces together into a unified whole and the seemingly random craziness in the world starts to look much less random. Yet she does this all in a way that is quite readable and compelling (rather than academic and dry) for the average reader.</p>

<p>After this, the book is divided into three sections that call believers to “Faithfully Different <em>Believing</em>,” “Faithfully Different <em>Thinking</em>,” and “Faithfully Different <em>Living</em>.” Any Christian, but especially new and/or younger believers, would benefit from 1) thinking through the differences between Christianity and secularism detailed by Natasha and 2) examining themselves to see how they’ve been influenced in their beliefs, thoughts, and actions by the unbiblical ideas surrounding them.</p>

<p>One area of note is “Chapter 10: Revitalizing the Call to Biblical Justice,” where Natasha explains the basics of critical theory—ideas, methods, and the ways each is playing out in the culture—clearly and concisely. This, in particular, is something every Christian needs to understand, as it has become part of the air we breathe in this culture, and I thought she did fantastic work on this first half of the chapter. I disagree with the conflation of “biblical justice” and generosity later in the chapter (something I’ve <a href="https://www.str.org/w/if-we-lose-the-meaning-of-justice-we-lose-the-gospel">explained</a> here in the past), and I think the chapter could have been enhanced by a discussion of the use of <a href="https://www.str.org/w/if-we-lose-the-meaning-of-justice-we-lose-the-gospel">the term “justice” in the Bible</a> as receiving what one has earned or is owed (as opposed to generous mercy)—i.e., rewards for good, punishments for evil, and proper adjudication between claims by those in authority. But I was happy to see she discusses God’s justice in those terms in a later chapter on the gospel message.</p>

<p>My only other caveat would be that I disagree with the briefly-mentioned idea that the Bible leaves open the possibility of <a href="https://www.str.org/w/one-way-or-any-way-part-2">inclusivism</a> (something you may want to review with the people you share the book with if you also disagree), but overall, I found myself thinking over and over how valuable and helpful this book will be for the body of Christ. As a readable, interesting, and needed book, it would be a great selection for a small group or discussions with your teenagers.</p>

<p>If you’re interested in hearing more about <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Faithfully-Different-Regaining-Biblical-Clarity/dp/0736984291/ref=asc_df_0736984291/?tag=hyprod-20&amp;linkCode=df0&amp;hvadid=525300323189&amp;hvpos=&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=4945243180925135452&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=9030970&amp;hvtargid=pla-1438721964172&amp;psc=1">Faithfully Different</a></em>, make sure you listen to the Stand to Reason podcast next week (either <a href="https://www.str.org/broadcast">live streamed</a> on Tuesday at 4:00 PT or on Wednesday <a href="https://www.str.org/weekly-audio">as a podcast</a>). Greg is a huge fan of the book, and I know their conversation will be worth listening to.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnatasha-crain-can-help-you-be-faithfully-different" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnatasha-crain-can-help-you-be-faithfully-different" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnatasha-crain-can-help-you-be-faithfully-different" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Resources to Learn Hermeneutics
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/10/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/resources-to-learn-hermeneutics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If I were asked what one thing every believer should study, it would be hermeneutics. What's hermeneutics, you might ask? It's the study of biblical interpretation. It’s about learning the proper principles to help you understand what God is saying in his Word.</p>

<p>Last week, I wrote an <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-verse-that-illustrates-three-interpretive-principles" rel="noopener" target="_blank">article</a> where I demonstrated how a single Bible verse that is misinterpreted by skeptics can be clarified by three keys to biblical interpretation: context, history, and genre. It was meant to show how important careful Bible study can be for understanding Scripture.</p>

<p>The follow-up question, then, is how does someone study this subject? Let me suggest a few resources.</p>

<p><strong>First, there are several good books that are available.</strong> <a href="https://store.str.org/purchase/never-read-a-bible-verse"><em>Never Read a Bible Verse</em></a> is short, affordable, accessible, and written by our very own founder of Stand to Reason, Greg Koukl. If you want&nbsp;a more rigorous book, I&nbsp;suggest <a href="https://store.str.org/purchase/how-to-read-the-bible-for-all-its-worth"><em>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</em></a> or <a href="https://store.str.org/purchase/playing-with-fire-how-the-bible-ignites-change-in-your-soul"><em>Playing With Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul</em></a>.</p>

<p><strong>Second, there are several articles that we (STR contributors) have written.</strong> All of them are free, of course.</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/coffee-cup-christianity">Coffee Cup Christianity</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/twisting-jesus-words">Twisting Jesus’ Words</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/never-read-a-bible-verse">Never Read a Bible Verse</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/reading-the-bible-requires-rules-we-already-know">Reading the Bible Requires Rules We Already Know</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/silly-putty-bible-study-1">Silly Putty Bible Study</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/misquoting-god-part-1">Misquoting God – Part 1</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/misquoting-god-part-2">Misquoting God – Part 2</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/putting-words-in-god-s-mouth">Putting Words in God’s Mouth</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.str.org/w/my-most-controversial-teaching">My Most Controversial Teaching</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Third, there are some free video resources.</strong> Two of them are available right away. The first is an informal 10-part video series I recorded. You can watch that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoCtBcnaHo6P8TbPslGAKLrUkzgI8Ei_D">here</a>. The other resource is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL506E0A7EE4663344">Walt Russell’s hermeneutics course</a>, taught at Talbot School of Theology (the seminary at Biola University). Walt Russell was one of my teachers at Talbot, and his class on the subject was <em>the </em>class to take. The third resource is currently in production. It’s an <a href="https://training.str.org/">STR U</a> course I’m creating, and it will be available on our website in the next few months.</p>

<p>In addition to learning hermeneutics in general, several people have asked about the best way to learn the history behind a passage. That’s a difficult question to answer because I don’t know of a single, easily accessible resource that can provide background information. I typically turn to several resources with the hope that one or more of them will tell me about the history behind a passage. Here are a few.</p>

<p>A Bible background commentary set is helpful. <a href="https://www.christianbook.com/zondervan-illustrated-backgrounds-commentary-testament-volumes/john-walton/9780310255727/pd/255727">These can be expensive, though</a>. If you have the money, it’s a great resource that will last you a lifetime. There are smaller and more affordable ones, however, like <a href="https://www.christianbook.com/bible-background-commentary-new-testament-old/j-h-walton/pd/82472X"><em>The IVP Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament &amp; the Old Testament</em></a>.</p>

<p>Sometimes, I also turn to my study Bibles because they often have a page or two at the beginning of each biblical book that provide some historical background. Depending on the study Bible, it may also include minimal commentary at the bottom of each page that provides insight into the biblical text.</p>

<p>Finally, I research online for articles that can help me understand the historical context of a passage. There are many excellent scholars who have written about Bible passages. I’ll admit, though, this can be dangerous because it’s sometimes difficult to know whom to trust. That’s the case with any resource, though, including Bible commentary books.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that I’m not suggesting the Bible is a mysterious book that requires a scholarly deep dive into its history every time you pick it up for your devotional time. Most of it is clear if you read it <a href="https://www.str.org/w/double-the-trouble-if-you-ignore-the-context">in context</a>. There are some passages, however, that can be better understood with a little historical clarification, and that’s where these resources can help.</p>

<p>As Paul exhorted Timothy in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A15&amp;version=NASB1995">2 Timothy 2:15</a>, make every effort to accurately handle the word of truth. Why? It’s the very words of God given to us. What a priceless gift!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fresources-to-learn-hermeneutics" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fresources-to-learn-hermeneutics" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fresources-to-learn-hermeneutics" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Seeing God’s Love Is Central to Living the Christian Life
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/15/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/seeing-god-s-love-is-central-to-living-the-christian-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-simple-way-to-know-and-be-shaped-by-your-bible">last week’s post</a>, I encouraged you to simply read the Bible repeatedly (as you’ve done with other lengthy book series you’ve enjoyed) in order to know it deeply and allow it to change you, so now I want to give you a more specific example of the benefits of this.</p>

<p>Consider the first half of Ephesians. In the past, I assumed Paul’s command in 4:1 to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called” referred generally to acting in a way that reflected well on God, but in context, he’s actually referring to something more specific—something you’ll see if we quickly walk through the text up to that point.</p>

<p>After describing how “<em>in love</em> [God] predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ…according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace” in Chapter 1, and then explaining even more carefully in Chapter 2 that this is all by his grace—that though we were “by nature children of wrath,” deserving only punishment, “<em>because of His great love</em> with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)”—and that, in this way (i.e., by God’s loving grace), even Gentiles can be reconciled to God together with Jews through the cross, “for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father,” he then, after marveling at God’s wisdom and the “unfathomable riches of Christ,” comes to this prayer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, <em>being rooted and grounded in love</em>, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and <em>to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God</em>. (Eph. 3:14–19)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, Paul concludes his description of how God loved us through the undeserved grace of Christ on the cross with a prayer that we would be able to comprehend the kind of love he just described, saying that if we can grasp the “length and height and depth” of the love that has “rooted and grounded” our salvation, we “may be filled up to all the fullness of God.”</p>

<p>Then comes 4:1–3:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Following Paul’s flow of thought, the manner “worthy of our calling” is the manner that flows directly from understanding everything he just explained about our sin and God’s gracious love. That is, the manner specifically includes humility (because we didn’t earn our salvation), gentleness (because God showered “the surpassing riches of his grace” on us rather than condemnation), patience (because God has “sealed us” with the Holy Spirit and will not reject us), tolerance (because God forgives our sins), and peace with our fellow believers (because God has unified us in Christ).</p>

<p>This is who we are to be as Christians—people who respond to the truth of who God is and what he’s done for us in a manner worthy of that truth. When we fulfill our roles in the church in this way, Paul says in 4:16, the body of Christ is built up “in love.”</p>

<p>And how, according to Paul, do we “fill up to all the fullness of God” and respond to his love in a manner appropriate to that love? By <em>knowing</em> his love. And how do we know his love? Just as Paul painstakingly revealed God’s love to us by describing his actions towards us <em>before</em> he prayed we would know that love deeply, we must <em>see</em> his love in order to <em>know</em> his love.</p>

<p>Now we are back to <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-simple-way-to-know-and-be-shaped-by-your-bible">my previous post</a>. If, as Christians, the fuel that fills us with “the fullness of God” and transforms us into humble, gentle, patient, tolerant people is our comprehension of the love of God (who saved us on the basis of nothing but his grace), and if to know that love, we must see that love, how then, after praying as Paul did, do we endeavor to see God’s love? By reading the entire Bible. Repeatedly. By saturating ourselves in his story of redemption, observing his perfect righteousness, seeing the lengths he went to in order to save those who hated and rejected him, watching his patience and acts of undeserved love over the centuries, and letting our repeated readings settle the truth into our minds and hearts more and more deeply over time.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fseeing-god-s-love-is-central-to-living-the-christian-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fseeing-god-s-love-is-central-to-living-the-christian-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fseeing-god-s-love-is-central-to-living-the-christian-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Tools to Help You Read through the Bible
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/16/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/tools-to-help-you-read-through-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Since I’ve been <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-simple-way-to-know-and-be-shaped-by-your-bible">advocating</a> reading through the Bible <a href="https://www.str.org/w/seeing-god-s-love-is-central-to-living-the-christian-life">over and over</a>, I thought I’d offer a couple of suggestions for tools that can help you do this.</p>

<p>First, if you’re working your way through the entire Bible, you need a way to keep track of what you’ve read, especially if you’re reading out of order. I recommend you use an app called <a href="https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bible-box/id615918629">Bible Box</a> for that. With this app, you can set a target end date for your reading (you can choose Old Testament, New Testament, or the whole Bible—either straight through or chronologically—and can keep track of more than one plan at a time), and it will automatically show you how much you should read each day, adjusting the suggested amount whenever you read less than expected or miss a day (and you can always adjust the target date). You simply check off the chapters you’ve read in whichever order you like. You can even open up <a href="https://www.youversion.com/the-bible-app/">the YouVersion Bible App</a> to your next scheduled chapter directly from your plan in Bible Box (though I <a href="https://www.str.org/w/-strask-do-i-need-a-physical-bible-">recommend reading a physical Bible</a>). Since the app also keeps track of the plans you’ve completed, you can look back at the list and see how you’ve done over time.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, as of now, this particular app only works on Apple phones, but there are others! Do a search and see what you can find. And for those who prefer physical lists and check boxes, Greg often recommends printing <a href="https://www.navigators.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/DJ-Book-at-a-Time-Bible-reading-plan.pdf">this list</a> and keeping it with your Bible.</p>

<p>Second, one thing I’ve discovered while reading through the Bible over and over is that when I <em>listen</em> rather than read, I hear new things. For some reason, my mind processes the text a little differently, and I make different connections and have different insights. For this reason, I recommend you spend some time listening rather than reading (this can also help you get through more material since you can listen while driving, walking, cleaning, etc.).</p>

<p>My favorite tool for this is <a href="https://apps.apple.com/us/app/esv-bible/id361797273">the ESV Bible app</a>. The app itself is attractive and extremely easy to navigate, you can start and stop the narration from wherever you are in the text, and you can adjust the speed. More importantly, I like the voice (which is the biggest reason why I listen to ESV rather than NASB, my usual translation), and now it has a second voice you can choose if you prefer. Finally—and this is a huge advantage of using this app—if you purchase a <a href="https://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv-study-bible-ebook/">digital ESV Study Bible</a> from Crossway (or have already purchased one) and create an account there, you can sign in on the ESV app and open the study Bible notes in a split screen with the text (or you can do the same with the Global Study Bible that comes free with the app). I love having these notes available wherever I am.</p>

<p>If you prefer listening to a different version of the Bible, the <a href="https://www.youversion.com/the-bible-app/">YouVersion Bible App</a> has numerous versions available for free, as well, and it has some of the same advantages as the ESV app, though I find it to be clunkier overall.</p>

<p>And if none of these tools makes things easier for you, don’t worry about it! There’s no need to make your reading more complicated than you want it to be. The point is to read, so find a way that works to motivate you and keep you on track, and stick with it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftools-to-help-you-read-through-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftools-to-help-you-read-through-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftools-to-help-you-read-through-the-bible" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why We Need the Local Church
topic: Christian Living
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 02/17/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-we-need-the-local-church
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The culture continues to be hostile to the Christian worldview. Social media outlets are becoming more aggressive towards us, and cancelations by the culture of confusion continue to increase. Where do we turn? The answer isn’t clever or new. We turn to the local church. Here’s why.</p>

<p><strong>First, the church is the <em>community</em> of God.</strong> The local church provides us with community and support. Being with other Christians revitalizes our souls. “The physical presence of other Christians,” Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “is a source of incomparable joy and strength to the believer.”</p>

<p>The community provided by the church gives us relief from the chaos. It’s the place we can retreat to where truth replaces confusion and brothers and sisters in Christ can find rest for their souls. The church is more than a community, though.</p>

<p><strong>Second, the church is the <em>body of Christ</em>. </strong>Understanding the church as the body of Christ keeps us from reducing church to some social club, historical society, or charitable organization. As the body of Christ, we represent a new work of God in the midst of an old, fallen world.</p>

<p>The conflict we’re experiencing now with the culture is a result of the old, Adamic world colliding with the new kingdom brought by Jesus. This is why life is so hard. There’s a mighty tension between two completely different realms ripping our cultural community apart.</p>

<p>We, however, are forever knit together as one body, organically connected to each other. The life and strength of Christ himself flows through each of us as we gather together. Though Satan employs his schemes, trying to tear the body apart, the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ’s church (Matt. 16:18).</p>

<p><strong>Third, the church is our <em>training ground.</em></strong> The local community of Christians is where we equip ambassadors for Christ to confront the devil’s lies. True theologians and apologists are made within the church, to act for the church, in the name of the church.</p>

<p>Only in recent times have efforts been made to move theology and apologetics to the margins in the local church, away from the convictions and practices of the Christian life. It’s created a mess of disjointed and misguided theology and a lack of unity.</p>

<p>Our times are defined by anxiety, restlessness, depression, and distraction. Daily life is a performance-based, soul-crushing grind that robs us of our joy. God-substitutes are everywhere, yet none can satisfy the deep yearning in each of our hearts.</p>

<p>The church is God’s answer to all of this. When we gather together as the body of Christ each week, we are rebuilt and equipped through word, water, bread, wine, and life together. But there’s more.</p>

<p><strong>Fourth, the church is also the <em>battlefield</em>.</strong> We’re in a battle with the forces of darkness. When we gather each week, we participate in warfare side-by-side with other believers all over the planet.</p>

<p>The local church is where we become fortified and stand firm against the schemes of the devil. Paul puts it this way: “Through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10).</p>

<p>Our <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-false-philosophy-of-cancel-culture">cancel culture is cutthroat</a>. It needs love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. Sound familiar? Where are these things going to come from if not from the Holy Spirit bearing his fruit in the lives of God’s people, the church?</p>

<p>Those are four reasons why participation in the local church is so important. It’s the place we go when we’re weary, battered, and tired from facing a world gone wrong. It’s where we go to find clarity in the chaos, peace for the anxious, hope for the depressed, salvation for the sinner, and a still point for the distracted.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-we-need-the-local-church" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-we-need-the-local-church" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-we-need-the-local-church" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Society Where Justice Is Grounded in Preference
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/22/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-society-where-justice-is-grounded-in-preference
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In R.C. Sproul’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Suffering-Role-Death-Christian/dp/1567691846/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3H7XMNQFYRLTV&amp;keywords=surprised+by+suffering&amp;qid=1644196014&amp;sprefix=surprised+by+sufferin%2Caps%2C293&amp;sr=8-1">Surprised by Suffering</a></em>, he comments on the implications for justice when a society rejects objective morality:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If there is no such thing as right and wrong, if there is no such thing as moral obligation, then there is no such thing as justness. If there is no such thing as justness, then ultimately there is no such thing as justice. Justice becomes a mere sentiment. It means the preferences of an individual or a group. If the majority in one society prefers that adultery be rewarded, then justice is served when an adulterer receives a prize for his adultery. If the majority in a different society prefers that adultery be punished, then justice is served if the adulterer is penalized. But in this schema, there is no such thing as ultimate justice because the will of an individual or of a group can never serve as an ultimate moral norm for justice. It can reveal only a preference.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And of course, this subjective view of “justice” as preference is exactly what many people assume these days when they accuse those who argue in terms of objective principles of making power plays—that is, they accuse them of hiding their <em>true</em> goal (i.e., maintaining the structures of power from which they benefit) behind nice-sounding words and “principles” that are merely being used to manipulate people into going along with their preferences.</p>

<p>These people have bitten the bullet of the loss of meaningful justice in a world without God, and they have turned it to their advantage, using it as a cudgel to discredit the arguments of those who have preferences different from their own. But of course, they excuse themselves from the charge of illegitimately using words and arguments to maintain their own preferences.</p>

<p>No society can continue long in this manner. If the inconsistency doesn’t tear the nation apart (with one set of rules for one side but not the other), <em>consistency</em> would make things even worse, for if everyone were to accept the idea that “principled” words are merely power plays, then arguments would cease to be attempted at all. No idea can be examined for truthfulness if there is no truth. Persuasion makes no sense if no one cares about comparing an idea to an objective standard. When an entire culture is given over to the idea that morality is relative (what Greg has called “<a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-primal-heresy">The Primal Heresy</a>”), the <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-fruit-of-relativism-is-naked-power">only way to promote one’s preference <em>is</em> by power plays</a>. And so the claim made by those who say arguments are merely power plays ends up leading directly to mere power plays.</p>

<p>The lack of belief in objective morality—something that can only be grounded in the character of an objective God—is a poison that will ultimately destroy the ability of ideologically diverse people to live together. If this is to turn around, it must do so one person at a time, <a href="https://www.str.org/w/argue-at-the-worldview-level">at the worldview level</a>.</p>

<p>This is where you come in. Do our culture’s difficulties seem impossible to fix? They’re not. Since our issues can be traced back to false worldviews, you have what you need to make a difference: the truth. Arguing for the truth of Christianity not only saves souls (according to the work of the Holy Spirit), but it also <a href="https://www.str.org/w/values-fight-poverty">transforms societies</a> as people become conformed to truth and act accordingly. And even greater than doing good to your neighbor (both for their salvation and their society), your speaking the truth does what we were created to do: It glorifies God. The implications of your doing the simple yet steady work of an <a href="https://www.str.org/ambassadors-creed">ambassador for Christ</a>, speaking to one person at a time, with evident <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-daily-prayer-for-this-cultural-moment">care for the truth</a>, are incalculable.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-society-where-justice-is-grounded-in-preference" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-society-where-justice-is-grounded-in-preference" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-society-where-justice-is-grounded-in-preference" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Must Be True for Ultimate Justice to Exist?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/23/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-must-be-true-for-ultimate-justice-to-exist-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Those who recognize, through their experience of the world, that justice <em>isn’t</em> merely a matter of preference (see <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-society-where-justice-is-grounded-in-preference">yesterday’s post</a>) but, rather, is objectively real should ask themselves, what must be true for ultimate justice to exist? Here’s what R.C. Sproul says in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Suffering-Role-Death-Christian/dp/1567691846/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3H7XMNQFYRLTV&amp;keywords=surprised+by+suffering&amp;qid=1644196014&amp;sprefix=surprised+by+sufferin%2Caps%2C293&amp;sr=8-1"><em>Surprised by Suffering</em></a> (summarizing Immanuel Kant’s argument):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Kant] argued that for the moral sense of duty to be meaningful, there must be such a thing as justness. For justness, or right and wrong, to be meaningful, there must be justice. Thus, justice serves as a necessary condition for moral obligation to be meaningful….</p>

<p>If ultimate justice is to be had, the first requirement that must be met is this: <strong>we must survive the grave</strong>. If we do not survive the grave, and if justice is not served perfectly in this world, then justice is not ultimate and our sense of moral obligation is a meaningless striving after the wind. If ultimate justice is served, we must be there to experience it….</p>

<p>A second necessary condition for ultimate justice is <strong>the presence of an ultimate judge</strong>. But no ordinary judge will do. For ultimate justice to be ensured, the judge must have the proper characteristics.</p>

<p>First of all, <strong>the judge himself must be perfectly just</strong>. If there is a moral blemish in the judge’s character, then chances are his judgments will be tainted and our quest for perfect justice will fail….</p>

<p>For perfect justice to be ensured, <strong>the perfect judge must have perfect knowledge</strong>. In a word, the perfect judge must be omniscient lest some relevant detail escape his notice and distort his verdict….</p>

<p>If a perfect decision is rendered, it still must be carried out…. For perfect justice to be carried out, the judge must have the power necessary to see that justice is truly served. He must have enough power to withstand any attempt to disrupt the flow of justice…. Therefore, <strong>the perfect judge must have perfect power</strong>. He must be all-powerful, or omnipotent….</p>

<p>Nothing less than a morally perfect, omniscient, immutable, eternal, and omnipotent God can insure that our moral sense of obligation is meaningful. No God, no justice. No justice, no ultimate right and wrong….</p>

<p>Therefore, Kant argued for the existence of God and for life after death on practical grounds. He maintained that we must make these two assumptions if justice is to have any basis.</p>

<p>Kant realized that such practical considerations do not “prove” the existence of God. He was saying only that if life is to be meaningful, there must be a God who ensures justice. <strong>These considerations prove only that if my sense of right and wrong are meaningful, then God must exist.</strong> [Emphases added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Many who don’t believe in the existence of God care a great deal about justice. It’s only with fear and trembling that I call them to consistency by pointing out how their concern for justice can’t be sustained by their relativism and/or atheism, because for every person who realizes, “By Jove, the reality of justice as a meaningful concept points to objective morality and the existence of God!” you’ll have at least one other person who concludes, “Well then, I guess justice doesn’t really exist after all.” The logic <a href="https://www.str.org/w/the-birth-of-transableism-why-our-culture-bites-absurd-bullets">can be followed in either direction</a> and still be internally consistent (though the second contradicts our experience of reality), and I would rather share a society with inconsistent atheists who care about true justice than with consistent atheists who reject the idea that justice is a meaningful concept.</p>

<p>However, I don’t think pragmatically withholding the truth <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-daily-prayer-for-this-cultural-moment">in the interest of creating a better society</a> is ever the right thing to do. Instead, we ought to challenge people who hold this inconsistency, speaking the truth clearly, and then leave the response in God’s hands. He may use our words to bring about repentance, or he may use our words to harden their hearts <a href="https://www.str.org/w/knowing-the-purpose-of-speaking-the-truth-will-help-you-persevere">for the purpose of revealing his righteousness in judgment</a>. We can’t know what will happen, but we can trust him to carry out his own good purposes through our efforts.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-must-be-true-for-ultimate-justice-to-exist-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-must-be-true-for-ultimate-justice-to-exist-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-must-be-true-for-ultimate-justice-to-exist-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Everyone Needs to Change, Including LGBT People
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/24/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/everyone-needs-to-change-including-lgbt-people
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m told I’ve got this wrong. I’m told that when it comes to people who identity as LGBT, God doesn’t expect them to change who they are or change who they love. I’m also told this is <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CXAXHbOr11T/">too hard a pill for evangelicals to swallow</a>.</p>

<p>I presume that what they mean is that people with same-sex attraction, a transgender identity, or who claim to be non-binary are free to embrace those impulses and satisfy those desires. God doesn’t expect them to change their identities or the the objects of their affection. They can be faithful followers of Jesus while fully embracing their LGBT identity.</p>

<p>The claim that becoming a follower of Jesus doesn’t entail change, however, is totally foreign to what it means to be a Christian. <em>Every</em> believer who is transformed by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit experiences a change of identity and lifestyle. It’s unreasonable to expect that the same power that raised Jesus from the grave—that resides in a regenerate person’s soul—is not going to change who you are and change your desires.</p>

<p>That’s because becoming a follower of Jesus isn’t an minor change. It’s not a slight shift. It’s a total transformation. You’re born again (John 3:3). You exit darkness and enter the light (1 Pet. 2:9). You were once a slave to sin and now are a slave to righteousness (Rom. 6:16–18). You were dead in your sins but now are alive in Christ (Rom. 6:11). You are adopted by God and have become his child (Rom. 8:15). The old things pass away and the new things come. You literally become a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).</p>

<p>To think that such a dramatic transition wouldn’t change who you are and change your desires is to completely miss the point and power of the gospel.</p>

<p>In the incarnation, Jesus emptied himself and took the form of a bondservant (Phil. 2:6–8). To follow the will of the Father, he endured immeasurable suffering and death.&nbsp;If we are going to follow Jesus, we should also expect to deny ourselves and take up our cross to follow the will of the Father. That will look different for every person that becomes a believer. It will require us to live a life denying unbiblical desires, which is an incredibly difficult path (Gal. 5:16). But those adopted into the family of God are given the Holy Spirit to help us do just that. Easy? No. But all things are possible with God.</p>

<p>I have many friends who are attracted to the same sex. When they first became believers, they recognized that God changed who they were and, consequently, called them to change what sexual desires they satisfied. They recognized that satisfying their own same-sex desires (in either thought or deed) was unbiblical and instead followed the will of the Father. That is their cross that they pick up daily to follow Jesus. Easy? No. But all things are possible with God.</p>

<p>Every person who follows Jesus experiences a change in who they are and what desires they will satisfy. That will look different for every individual. Some will argue that it doesn’t seem fair that some desires are harder to deny than others. I agree. That’s not an excuse, though.</p>

<p>So, do LGBT people need to change who they are and who they love? If they want to follow Jesus, then, yes, of course. God calls us to change our unbiblical identity (whatever it is) and align our will (whatever its desires) with the Father. But that’s not just for LGBT people. It’s for every person who calls upon the name of Jesus (Rom. 10:13). <em>That</em> truth might be too hard a pill to swallow for some. Easy? No. But all things are possible with God.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feveryone-needs-to-change-including-lgbt-people" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feveryone-needs-to-change-including-lgbt-people" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feveryone-needs-to-change-including-lgbt-people" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The “Heathen” and the Unknown God – Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-heathen-and-the-unknown-god-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“Mr. Koukl, I want to get in a pointed comment here.” The talk show host hesitated, dramatizing the moment for his radio audience. “We were talking about the person in Southeast Asia,” he continued, “the pagan or Buddhist or anyone who has never heard of Western Christianity. Father Kidney said, according to his [Roman Catholic] faith, that a person may be saved if he is honest and follows his religion. Do you believe that, or do you believe he is damned?”</p>

<p>Inside, I winced. The question was phrased so bluntly that my answer was bound to offend. In fact, on one level—an emotional one—it even bothered me.</p>

<p>“No,” I answered calmly, “I don’t believe he will be saved without the gospel of Jesus Christ.”</p>

<h2>The Despicable Doctrine</h2>

<p>This challenge has nipped at the heels of Christians for ages. It’s caused some to limp through their witness with shrugs, apologies, and uncertainties. When they respond with biblical clarity, they suffer dismissal for their “arrogant,” “narrow-minded,” or “insensitive” dogma.</p>

<p>The fate of the unevangelized is one of the most taxing issues I face since answering it requires making the kind of thoughtful, theological distinctions critics are not fond of countenancing. No matter how carefully the answer is characterized, the truth is still odious to them—a genuine stumbling block, foolishness.</p>

<p>The issue can be answered, though, but the solution has some theological twists. The question is fraught with misconceptions and is often laden with emotion. As with many apologetics concerns, however, sound and precise theology is frequently all that’s needed to untangle the elements and bring order. That is what I intend to do in the next two issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>.</p>

<p>At face value, in a postmodern culture, the exclusivity of the gospel and the requirement of faith in Christ for salvation are a bit much even for many committed believers. To non-Christians, the doctrine is despicable. If hearing the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation, then entire cultures have been consigned to perdition, reducing the Almighty to a petty racist. Is that fair? Is it just?</p>

<p>Even C.S. Lewis drew the circle wider than many evangelicals would feel comfortable with. He distinguished between those who aggressively evade the Son of God and those who reject him out of “honest ignorance or honest error.” Of the latter, Lewis says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If their intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been...I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[1]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>The Common Denominator</h2>

<p>Is it possible that the Bible lends support to this idea? Paul argues against works salvation by appealing to a single common denominator of the redeemed of every age. God justified New Testament believers the same way he justified Old Testament believers—by faith.</p>

<p>What of Old Testament believers who never knew Jesus? What of Melchizedek, a priest of El Elyon (a Canaanite name for God Most High)?<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[2]</a> Or Rahab, a pagan prostitute who knew only that the Hebrew God was “God in heaven above and on the earth beneath”? <a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[3]</a></p>

<p>Peter tells Cornelius that “God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him” (Acts 10:34–35). Lydia was simply a “worshiper of God” whose heart the Lord opened to respond to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14).</p>

<p>Doesn’t it make sense that, as Rabbi Weiss argued on that radio show, “all human beings, as long as they are decent, as long as they uphold the fundamental commandments...are promised a place in the world to come”?</p>

<p>Some New Testament texts seem to agree. Paul writes, “[God] will render to every man according to his deeds.... For there is no partiality with God” (Rom. 2:6, 11). Jesus himself states, “An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (Jn. 5:28–29).</p>

<h2>What Must I Do?</h2>

<p>Fundamentally, the question of salvation is a question about criteria. With the Philippian jailer, we ask, “What must I do to be saved?” How, though, can we know what God wants?</p>

<p>I put this question to a group of Christians. Their answer: God must reveal himself. For example, he’s revealed “his eternal power and divine nature…through what has been made” (Rom. 1:20).</p>

<p>“Is the issue of salvation, though, a question of <em>who</em> God is—his attributes—or of what God <em>wants</em>—his desires?”</p>

<p>They thought for a minute. “What he wants,” they agreed finally.</p>

<p>“Look at Betty at the end of the table. We can know some general things about her by observation. But how can we know her <em>desires</em>?”</p>

<p>Their response was immediate: “She has to tell us.”</p>

<p>Right. The same is true with God. He reveals something of his<em> nature</em> through the created order. But we cannot know his<em> desires</em>—specifically, what we must do to be saved—unless he tells us. Only when God speaks can we move beyond vague inferences to specifics.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4">[4]</a></p>

<p>The fact that God has spoken is foundational to the Christian message. We don’t have to guess what he wants. He’s told us, and when God speaks, his Word puts an end to speculation. So what has God said? What is the biblical answer to the question “What must I do to be saved?”</p>

<p>Unfortunately, Scripture seems to offer two completely different—and contradictory—answers to that question, as evidenced in the verses above.</p>

<p>When the Philippian jailer asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul answered, “<em>Believe in the Lord Jesus</em>, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30–31). When the specialist in the Jewish Law asked Jesus the same question, though, Jesus directed him to Moses. “<em>What is written in the Law</em>?” he asked. When the lawyer cited the two great commandments, Jesus simply responded, “Do this and you will live” (Lk. 10:25–28).</p>

<p>So which is it? Believe or behave? Is salvation through trust in Jesus or through obedience to Moses? When it comes to the question of the unevangelized—those who worship the “unknown God” and seek to faithfully follow the precepts of their own religions in “honest ignorance or honest error”—are they heirs of eternal life, made righteous through their own religion, or are they rejected by God for rejecting a Christ of whom they’ve never heard?</p>

<p>It’s time to begin to untie that tangle.</p>

<h2>The Problem of God’s Narrow Ways</h2>

<p>To properly understand the biblical teaching on salvation, we must be crystal clear on something crucial at the outset: <em>The God of Scripture has always been narrow.</em></p>

<p>The Passover was God’s first act of deliverance of the Hebrews from slavery. Yet, in the rescue, there was danger. Those not “under the blood” were at lethal risk. Note God’s sober warning through Moses that an angel of death would sweep over Egypt on the night of that first Passover:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord. The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. (Ex. 12:12–13)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Egyptians were a profoundly religious people, yet their single-minded devotion to the gods of their own pantheon offered them no protection from the wrath of the one true God. Indeed, the plagues were not just judgments against the Egyptians, but against their false gods as well (“and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments”).</p>

<p>Soon after, at Sinai, the very first commandment God gave to the Jews defined the narrow path they were to follow: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have <em>no other gods</em> before me” (Ex. 20:2–3).</p>

<p>In the book of Numbers, when God sent poisonous snakes sweeping through the camp as judgment for the Jews’ rebellion during their wanderings in the wilderness, God made a narrow provision for their escape: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he shall live’” (Num. 21:8).</p>

<p>Note carefully that <em>only</em> those Jews who looked on the brazen serpent physically survived. Jesus likened this event to his crucifixion, the only means of mankind’s spiritual survival: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in him have eternal life” (Jn. 3:14–15).</p>

<p>Jesus’ own claim towards the end of his life, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me,”<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5">[5]</a> perfectly coincided with his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount at the outset of his ministry:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.&nbsp;(Matt. 7:13–14)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Those whom Jesus personally trained to follow after him proclaimed the same narrow message. Early in Acts, Peter preached the necessity of faith in Christ to the Jews even though they were deeply and faithfully committed to their own religious traditions:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:11–12)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul wrote that God desires all to be saved by means of God’s singular solution, specifically that “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:4–6).</p>

<p>Regardless of where one reads, then—the Hebrew Scriptures, the Gospels, the book of Acts, or the Epistles—the message is the same: When it comes to salvation, God’s way has always been narrow.</p>

<h2>The Problem of Sincerity</h2>

<p>Most people in the world worship something beyond themselves. Some kind of god is the object of their religious attentions and affections, and with complete sincerity, they pay him—or it, or them—genuine homage. Why assume, though, that this is enough? Has God revealed that mere sincerity is adequate? No. Scripture says just the opposite.</p>

<p>In his sermon on Mars Hill,<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6">[6]</a> Paul acknowledged that the Athenians were “very religious in all aspects.” Indeed, they had even erected an idol “to an unknown God.” Worshiping in ignorance, however—even with Lewis’s “good intentions”—was not adequate, Paul instructed them. The great Lord of heaven and earth was not made of gold or silver or stone, and he could not be contained by temples made with human hands.</p>

<p>Yes, God could be found by them, Paul acknowledged—if they would seek him in truth—but the Athenians had not found him yet, and the profusion of their idols was proof.</p>

<p>Paul chastised them for their false views of God then called them to repentance, warning that judgment in righteousness was coming and that Jesus of Nazareth, the resurrected one, would preside over it.</p>

<p>There was no hint of pluralism in Paul’s words on Mars Hill, and he gave no hope that the men of Athens would find any refuge in their sincerity.</p>

<p>Later, Paul speaks explicitly to the question of sincerity when he pours out his heart in lament for his lost brothers, the Jews:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:1–4)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Jews had zeal, no question. It was the same zeal that compelled Paul to vigorously pursue Christians from city to city, punishing them, imprisoning them, and even overseeing their executions (Acts 26:9–11). It was this misdirected zeal—this errant sincerity—that qualified Paul not as a righteous religious man but as the foremost of sinners (1 Tim. 1:13–15).</p>

<p>Sincere zeal must be aligned with truth. This is the case in virtually every area of our lives, but it’s especially vital in spiritual things. Canaanites worshiping Molech did so zealously, but Molech was a non-god, an idol. Zeal is not an adequate defense. In fact, it can have disastrous results if not wedded to right knowledge (faithful Canaanite “worship” included child sacrifice).</p>

<h2>The Problem of Goodness</h2>

<p>What of the good person, though? Surely, God will not reject him? Even the Scriptures seem to affirm as much, as we have seen (above). And what choice is there, anyway, for the decent non-believer who is geographically out of range of the gospel? If he is honest and follows his religion (Father Kidney), if his intentions are good (Lewis), if he keeps the great commandments (Jesus), will he not enjoy eternal life?</p>

<p>Granted, if a man keeps God’s law, he’ll have no problem with God. Paul and Jesus both agree on this. The innocent “heathen” who has never heard the gospel goes straight to Heaven when he dies. Why shouldn’t he, <em>if he’s innocent</em>? The next question, however, is crucial: <em>Where is such a person? </em></p>

<p>Poll anyone on the definition of “basically good,” and you’ll notice something interesting. Invariably, when we are the ones identifying real evil, we always come out fairly clean in the analysis. Our standards are generous because our self-interests are involved. The temptation to cover our own tracks is strong.</p>

<p>The line dividing good folk from bad lies somewhere below us. We always seem to make the “good person” cut. Virtually everyone thinks himself in the winners’ circle, more or less, nothing like Dickens’s “squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner,” Ebenezer Scrooge.</p>

<p>Poll God, and measure by his standards, though, and the picture changes dramatically. Scrooges abound, and much worse. Even when the multitude of God’s commands are reduced to two simple maxims—love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself—our lives are still moral disasters.</p>

<p>Think back on the lawyer in Luke 10 who asked Jesus, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” The lawyer understood the necessity of loving God, but the second commandment confused him. He needed clarification, but note his motivation: “<em>Wishing to justify himself</em>, he said to Jesus, ‘Who is my neighbor?’”</p>

<p>Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan follows, not principally as a morality tale—though that is how most understand it, unfortunately—but rather as an assault on any attempt at self-justification. Jesus uses the parable to eradicate any hope any of us might entertain that we can in any wise save ourselves.</p>

<p>There is a fairly obvious reason that rigorous pursuit of obedience will do us no good: All law requires perfection. Note James:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jas. 2:10–11)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>James confirms a commonsense notion. Laws are meant to be kept, and any violation deserves appropriate punishment. If you keep 99 laws but violate the 100th, you are a lawbreaker, nonetheless, and retribution awaits you.</p>

<p>That is the reason why law-abiding citizens do not periodically get congratulatory letters from their district attorneys applauding them for their rectitude and inviting them to knock off a few gas stations since they now have credit on their accounts. Law does not work that way—man’s law or God’s law.</p>

<p>Where is the good Buddhist, the good Hindu, or the good Muslim? The good Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim is only “good” because he faithfully worships and obeys a false god, just like the Canaanites did­­­—which can’t be good, but bad, since it violates the true God’s first commandment.</p>

<p>Where is the good Christian, for that matter? He doesn’t exist, not when measured by God’s standards. Jesus made that clear: “You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).</p>

<p>Put simply, the problem with goodness is that none of us—from the least to the greatest—can ever be good enough. God’s perfect law puts us <em>all</em> under sin, as Paul writes, “that <em>every</em> mouth may be closed and <em>all the world</em> may become accountable to God” (Rom. 3:19). God’s standards of moral perfection silence every claim to self-righteousness. Each of us stands guilty in the dock.</p>

<p>Whenever I am tempted to weigh myself using the balance of good behavior, I recall these words of the psalmist:<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7">[7]</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you, Lord, should mark iniquities,<br>
<em>O Lord, who could stand?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>If our moral scorecards are the standard for our acceptance by God, we are all doomed. The Scripture is clear: “There is none righteous, not even one…. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Thus, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in his sight.”<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8">[8]</a> The record destroys us all. “Oh Lord, who can stand?” None can.</p>

<p>In the end, God’s law breaks each one of us—Jew or Gentile, priest or pagan, evangelized or unevangelized—because goodness is not the real problem. Badness is.</p>

<h2>The Central False Assumption</h2>

<p>That evening on the radio, in my conversation with two religious Jews and a Roman Catholic priest, Rabbi Weiss voiced the concern at the heart of the problem of Christian exclusivism:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I would have to state very squarely...we don’t accept that [people are lost without Christ] at all. We believe that the Almighty would have to be a very cruel, very unfeeling God that would make it necessary for so many millions of his children who are not in contact and who never have been in contact with anybody to spread the good news, to be damned eternally.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The rabbi, though, was making a mistake virtually everyone makes who balks at the demands of the gospel. It is a false assumption, a critical error made even by many Christians, a fundamental misunderstanding regarding those who have never heard the gospel. <em>No one goes to Hell for lack of belief in Christ, whether they’ve heard of him or not. </em><em>Rather, they are punished for breaking God’s law—something everyone is guilty of.</em></p>

<p>When the books are finally opened at the final reckoning, men will be judged by their <em>deeds</em>, not by their lack of belief, and everyone so judged perishes because each is guilty:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, <em>according to their deeds</em>…. And they were judged, every one of them <em>according to their deeds</em>…. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:11–15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That is the bad news, and the bad news is very, very bad. But bad news is what makes the good news good, the ray of hope revealed in the very next verse of the psalm I cited:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But there is forgiveness with you,<br>
That you might be feared.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is forgiveness available to everyone? Yes, I think it is, but it must be carefully—and biblically—qualified. Forgiveness from our narrow, holy God will not be on the basis of sincerity. It will not be on the basis of misplaced religious zeal. It will not be on the basis of personal goodness. That, the Scripture makes clear.</p>

<p>Being convinced of these biblical truths is the first step to untying the tangle of the question of the fate of those who have never heard the gospel. It is the starting point, not the final word.</p>

<p>There are more pieces to this puzzle than those I have laid before you here. Revealing the rest of them and piecing them together to present a final picture will be the focus of the next issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1]</a> C.S. Lewis, <em>God in the Dock</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 110.</p>

<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[2]</a> Genesis 14:18–20.</p>

<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[3]</a> Joshua 2:11.</p>

<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4">[4]</a> Knowing God’s moral desires—the law God has revealed by writing it on our hearts—would be an exception.</p>

<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5">[5]</a> John 14:6.</p>

<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6">[6]</a> Acts 17:22–31.</p>

<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7">[7]</a> Psalm 130:3.</p>

<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8">[8]</a> Romans 3:10, 23; 3:20.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-heathen-and-the-unknown-god-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-heathen-and-the-unknown-god-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-heathen-and-the-unknown-god-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Our Free Salvation Sets Us Free to Love
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Robby Lashua
date: 03/02/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/our-free-salvation-sets-us-free-to-love
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It happens at the most inconvenient time. Dinner’s on the table, or I’m putting my kids to bed, or I’m right in the middle of my favorite TV show, and there’s a knock at the door. Reluctantly, I open it and find two smiling faces ready to share their religion with me. Ugh.</p>

<p>I’m polite, of course, but annoyed. Feelings of guilt quickly follow. Shouldn’t I care about these nice people who love me so much that they come to my house—risking rejection and rebuff—to share their good news with me?</p>

<p>I admire Mormons’ and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ zeal to make converts. Their door-to-door actions show it. Even so, I’m mystified at how the conversations often end. In the middle of our good chat, my doorstep friends say they have another appointment, drop some pamphlets on the table, and leave. It’s like they’re clocking out with me and moving on to their next opportunity.</p>

<p>Why? Then one day it hit me. They don’t come to my door primarily because they love me; they come for a different reason.</p>

<p>Motivation matters. So what is the foundational motivation driving our door-to-door evangelists? The teachings of the LDS Church and <em>The Watchtower</em> tell us.</p>

<p>George Albert Smith, the 8th prophet of the LDS church, <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/08/afw-eng-local-pages/local-news-001?lang=eng">said</a>, “We will attain our exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom only on the condition that we share with our Father’s other children the blessings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and observe the commandments that will enrich our lives here and hereafter.”</p>

<p>Did you catch that? Mormons <em>must</em> share their faith to earn their “exaltation.”</p>

<p>The same is true for our JW friends. <em>The Watchtower</em> says, “<a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004203#h=19:0-23:550">By preaching</a> <em>we can save ourselves</em> and those who listen to us,” and J.W.s “<a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1989681">will be saved</a> to eternal life only if they continue to adhere to all of God’s requirements.”</p>

<p>Put simply, JWs believe they will gain their salvation by knocking on doors, and they will lose their salvation if they stop.</p>

<p>Mormons and JWs are typically kind, pleasant, and respectful, but their evangelism is driven by their need to fulfill specific requirements. They may love those they’re talking with, but their goal in evangelizing is to save themselves.</p>

<p>Christianity is different. We don’t earn salvation through missionary work or passing out pamphlets. We gain entrance to Heaven by the grace of God through faith: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8–9).</p>

<p>We have a different motivation for witnessing. Since evangelism doesn’t buy Heaven for us, we’re able to share the good news motivated by love. Jesus said the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor.</p>

<p>Is it really love for our neighbor if we’re sharing with them in order to buy our way into Heaven? Can a self-centered motive produce genuine love?</p>

<p>Did you ever wonder why a 20-year-old supermodel marries a 90-year-old billionaire? “We’re in love. We have so much in common. Age is just a number, anyway.” Right. No one believes her. That’s not why she’s marrying the old guy.</p>

<p>We have a label to describe a person with this kind of “love”—gold digger. Works-based salvation, central to all cults and world religions, sadly produces gold-digger love.</p>

<p>John 3:16 tells us what motivated God to send his Son. It wasn’t obligation or duty. It was love. Love motivated God to send Jesus to live a perfect life and die to pay sin’s penalty. God in his goodness has given us this same ability to be motivated by love. “We love because he first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19).</p>

<p>With our requirements for salvation removed by the cross, we can now selflessly obey God’s command to love others.</p>

<p>Further, how can we love our enemies if we are doing it to save our own skin? If love “does not seek its own,” then evangelism to secure our salvation cannot be love. Christ loved us by sacrificing himself to serve others, not earning anything for himself in the process.</p>

<p>So, when you hear that inconvenient knock on your door, answer it. Engage your doorstep friends in conversation about the God of grace. Be gentle and respectful. They may be at your door because they’re trying to earn their salvation. But your example of genuine love towards them may lead to their genuine salvation.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-free-salvation-sets-us-free-to-love" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-free-salvation-sets-us-free-to-love" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Four-free-salvation-sets-us-free-to-love" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: God’s Preferred Pronouns
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/04/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-s-preferred-pronouns
content:
            <div> 
		<p>God is not a he. That’s what gender theorists claim. God’s pronouns are they/them, we’re told. After all, God is an ungendered spiritual being. He's <em>three</em> persons in one: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That’s a plurality of persons. Furthermore, “Elohim”—the ancient Hebrew word for God—is in plural form. Doesn’t all this evidence signal a reason to change how we refer to God? Should we abandon he/him and adopt they/them?</p>

<p>To be fair, there is some truth to what is being said. God <em>is </em>a spiritual, not physical, being. He’s not gendered and, therefore, neither male nor female like a human being. That’s true. Also, God <em>is</em> triune, which means he co-exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—three persons in one divine being. Therefore, it does make sense to refer to the <em>three persons of the Trinity</em> as they/them (e.g., “<em>They</em> all have the same divine nature”). Apart from that instance, there’s no reason to assign the Almighty new pronouns.</p>

<p>It’s also worth noting that modern gender ideology is, historically speaking, incredibly recent (and, I’d argue, highly dubious). To grant it full authority and then retroactively impose it on an ancient culture that never operated in those terms is like trying to impose automobile regulations on horse-drawn carriages. It’s anachronistic.</p>

<p>The attempt to map modern ideology on ancient texts is nothing new. <a href="https://www.str.org/w/god-was-canceling-people-before-it-was-cool">Cancel culture</a> is fraught with problems because it assesses past behaviors and expressions of ideas according to modern sensibilities. People have also recently claimed that <a href="https://www.str.org/w/does-the-bible-limit-gender-to-just-male-and-female-">the Bible doesn’t limit sex to male and female</a>, which, again, attempts to map today’s cultural categories onto ancient texts. There are other examples, to be sure. All of them, however, fail because they are anachronistic. Even so, there’s a better reason to reject they/them pronouns for God.</p>

<p>God has already revealed his pronouns in the Bible, and they are he/him. In one sense, there’s no need to debate this question since God has already decreed his decision. Remember, the Bible is God-breathed (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+tim+3%3A16&amp;version=NASB1995">2 Tim. 3:16</a>). That means the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors to write the words of Scripture, and that includes the singular, masculine pronouns he chose for himself.</p>

<p>From the get-go of creation, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&amp;version=NASB1995">Scripture says</a>, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God <em>He</em> created him; male and female <em>He</em> created them” (emphasis mine). The Old Testament continues to use singular, masculine pronouns and also describes God as “Father” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32%3A6&amp;version=NASB1995">Deut. 32:6</a>), “husband” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+54%3A5&amp;version=NASB1995">Isa. 54:5</a>), and “King” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+44%3A6&amp;version=NASB1995">Isa. 44:6</a>). All these terms presuppose a masculine, singular reference that justifies a corresponding pronoun.</p>

<p>There are some verses in Scripture that might suggest a pronoun that is not masculine. For example, the Bible occasionally refers to God with feminine characteristics. God is described as being <em>like</em> a mother who comforts her child (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa+66%3A13&amp;version=NASB1995">Isa. 66:13</a>) or <em>as</em> a mother bear robbed of her cubs (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%2013%3A8&amp;version=NASB1995">Hosea 13:8</a>). Notice, though, these verses are similes and refer to God <em>like </em>or <em>as </em>a mother. They are not saying God <em>is </em>a mother.</p>

<p>There are also some verses that might suggest a pronoun that is not singular. I mentioned earlier how gender theory advocates claim “Elohim” is a plural form, which they believe justifies they/them pronoun usage. That, however, fails to consider its <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Grammar_and_etymology">grammatical usage in the Old Testament</a>. Scholars recognize that although “Elohim” is indeed masculine plural (and can be used to refer to various deities), the term is grammatically singular when used to refer to the God of Israel. The Old Testament witness, then, doesn’t support they/them usage.</p>

<p>The New Testament provides additional support for the usage of singular, masculine pronouns. For example, the Greek word <em>Theos</em>—translated “God”—is used <a href="https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/jesus-as-god-the-new-testament-use-of-theos-in-reference-to-jesus/">1,315 times</a> and is distinctly singular and masculine.</p>

<p>All throughout the Old Testament, God is remote, hidden, and only reveals himself on rare occasions. But when the New Testament era begins, God initiates a remarkable, history-altering event: He reveals himself by entering humanity and taking on the creaturely nature of a man (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+2%3A6-8&amp;version=NASB1995">Phil. 2:6–8</a>). The incarnation is the expression of God himself in bodily form: Jesus, a distinctly male person. Scripture calls Jesus “Immanuel,” God with us (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+1%3A23&amp;version=NASB1995">Matt. 1:23</a>). He represents what God is like to the world. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A9&amp;version=NASB1995">Colossians 2:9</a> tells us that in Jesus, “all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” The bottom line is that Scripture repeatedly refers to God in a singular, masculine way.</p>

<p>Not only was Jesus God in bodily from, but he also spoke authoritatively about how we can better understand God. Jesus routinely referred to God as “Father” (e.g., “I and the Father are one”—<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010%3A30&amp;version=NASB1995">John 10:30</a>). When he taught us to pray, Jesus told us to call God “Father” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+6%3A9&amp;version=NASB1995">Matt. 6:9</a>) and personally referred to him as “Abba, Father” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+14%3A36&amp;version=NASB1995">Mk. 14:36</a>), further justifying the use of singular and masculine pronouns.</p>

<p>The biblical data overwhelming supports the position that God wants us to refer to him with a singular, masculine pronoun. Since that’s how God has chosen to reveal himself, we should honor him by using the pronouns used in Scripture.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-preferred-pronouns" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-preferred-pronouns" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-s-preferred-pronouns" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Consequences of Rejecting God and Objective Truth
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/08/2022
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-consequences-of-rejecting-god-and-objective-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been reading <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Fascism-Liquidating-Judeo-Christian-Scholarship/dp/0570046033/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UUE12CBYWX3Q&amp;keywords=modern+fascism&amp;qid=1644879779&amp;sprefix=modern+fascism%2Caps%2C333&amp;sr=8-1">Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview</a></em> by Gene Edward Veith, and it details the worldview of fascism, an ideology respected—and even popular—among Western intellectuals in the 20th century before Nazism revealed the horrors it can unleash.</p>

<p>The book was written 30 years ago (thankfully, untainted by today’s political controversies and biases), so it’s shocking to discover that not only is it relevant to our situation today, but also the ideas central to the fascist worldview have filtered down from the 20th-century intellectuals and gained a great deal of ground in mainstream, popular thought—just not under the proper name of “fascism.”</p>

<p>Veith sums up the central idea of the fascist worldview this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Fascism can be understood most clearly in terms of its archenemy, the Jew. Just as the Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews, fascism sought to eliminate the Judeo-Christian tradition from Western culture.</p>

<p>Ernst Nolte has defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence.” Whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition focuses on a transcendent God and a transcendent moral law, fascist spirituality is centered upon what is tangible. Nature and the community assume the mystical role they held in the ancient mythological religions. Religious zeal is displaced away from the transcendent onto the immanent: the land, the people, the blood, the will.</p>

<p>Fascists seek an organic, neomythological unity of nature, the community, and the self. The concepts of a God who is above nature and a moral law that is above society are rejected. Such transcendent beliefs are alienating, cutting off human beings from their natural existence and from each other.</p>

<p>Specifically, such transcendent beliefs were condemned as being “Jewish.” Fascist anti-Semitism was not merely racial—despite the biological race theory that dominated National Socialism. The rationale for anti-Semitism was also the <em>ideas</em> of the Jews. According to fascist theorists, the Jewish influence—that is, the idea of a transcendent religion and a transcendent moral law—was responsible for the ills of Western culture.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because fascists rejected the transcendent, they were hostile towards Bible-centered Christianity (and the Judaism that birthed it). They also rejected the idea of knowable, objective truth and viewed the academy as a way to indoctrinate people into the “correct” (that is, their preferred) ideas. Here, Veith explains Heidegger’s argument against academic freedom:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” partaking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent. The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice. In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community. Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.</p>

<p>The concept that there are no absolute truths means that human beings can impose <em>their</em> truth upon an essentially meaningless world. There are no objective, essentialist criteria to stand in the way of united, purposeful scholars forging their new intellectual order and willing the essence of the German people. What this meant in practice can be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You may see something there that looks familiar to you: “Truth” is subordinate to agenda, and the claim that we should seek to discover the objective truth of a matter is seen as a threat to our social responsibility to uphold the narrative, and is therefore dangerous, which is why “academic freedom” shouldn’t be allowed.</p>

<p>And what was the result of these elements of the fascist worldview in Germany?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If reason can no longer lead to a common truth and if meaning is a function of the will, then the intellectual life becomes a conflict of competing wills. Persuasion is a matter not of rationally analyzing evidence to reach a common conclusion; rather, it becomes a matter of power, of one will conquering other wills. In a discussion of his political rallies, Hitler analyzes persuasion as the process whereby weak wills are overwhelmed by a stronger will….</p>

<p>Fascist rhetoric thus aims at the will rather than the mind. Rational discussion is replaced with psychological and rhetorical manipulation; the search for truth is set aside in favor of a power struggle and a contest of wills.</p>

<p>That fascism placed such an importance on the will may help to explain its particular mode of tyranny. Those who dissented with the regime were seen not as people who disagreed intellectually or philosophically, but as people with hostile wills. In rejecting the common will, they were guilty of not belonging. This is perhaps why the Nazi apparatus was so thorough in its interrogations—what was wanted was not so much conformity but assent. Those who disagreed were exhibiting a contrary will; they were not skeptics but enemies. Conflicts of the will cannot be mediated by reason; they can only be resolved by force, with one will imposing itself on the other. There is no question of persuasion; only coercion or—for those totally outside the collective will, such as Jews—elimination.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Who does not see this approach—a lack of care for objective truth, psychological and rhetorical manipulation and pressure to assent, labeling those who disagree as enemies, attempting to remove them from public life—echoed today? The rejection of the transcendent has had and will have terrible consequences.</p>

<p>The more I learn about the history and consequences of ideas, the more two things become clear to me. First, Christians must <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-daily-prayer-for-this-cultural-moment">love truth</a>. There’s a reason why God values truth so highly. In fact, I’m sure there are <em>many</em> reasons and that we only know some of them. As <a href="https://www.str.org/w/a-daily-prayer-for-this-cultural-moment">I wrote last year</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The temptation to close our eyes to truth, to tweak it, to hide the inconvenient bits for the sake of something “good” is especially strong in our culture right now. But every truly good thing can only be discovered, revealed, and accomplished in truth, so we ignore truth at our peril. Instead, we must seek it, submit to it, champion it, and allow ourselves to be changed by it rather than viewing it as a dispensable tool to be discarded when it interferes with our well-intentioned narrative and goals. You cannot blur truth for the sake of serving God because only truth can point to the God who is true.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is countercultural, so it will take effort to go against the current in this. We need to be intentional about our allegiance to truth (which is, ultimately, allegiance and submission to the God of truth) and never place other goals above it.</p>

<p>Second, Christians must love the Bible. It is absolutely crucial that we, as believers in a transcendent God and standard, fully submit ourselves to the revelation he’s given us. Again, this is extremely countercultural in a society that values creating our own identities and “truths,” but the difference between our worldview and the culture’s goes right down to this root: Is there a God we ought to submit our lives to in order to flourish, or does our flourishing depend on our creating&nbsp;ourselves according to our own desires? While explaining how Nietzsche’s ideas became part of Nazism, Veith says this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For Nietzsche, this next stage of human evolution is not merely a superior biological specimen, but a newly authentic self, who will usher in a new moral, cultural, and spiritual order. The Superman will not accept the abstract, transcendental meanings imposed by a disembodied rationalism or by a life-denying religion. Rather, the Superman will <em>create</em> meaning for himself and for the world as a whole.</p>

<p>The Superman, according to Nietzsche, is an artist who can shape the human race according to his will. “Man is for him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, sound familiar?</p>

<p>As Veith points out, only the Christians who insisted on holding to transcendent biblical truths stood up to the Nazis, opposing “‘the practical and violent resistance to transcendence’ that was fascism.” The destruction that will come today from rejecting both truth and the Bible will be devastating. Let’s do our small part every day to resist it—not only in the world, but also in our own hearts.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-consequences-of-rejecting-god-and-objective-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-consequences-of-rejecting-god-and-objective-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-consequences-of-rejecting-god-and-objective-truth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


