1

Live Action: 1st Trimester Chemical Abortion

It’s incredibly awkward when you’re in an important worldview conversation with a friend, and you don’t know what to say. You can’t figure out the right facts or convincing words to combat their argument, and worse, the conversation ends with you questioning your own beliefs.

First Peter 3:15 says “…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Though this verse is speaking about sharing the gospel, the principle – always being prepared to make a defense with gentleness and respect – applies to anything we believe.

The Sanctity of Life is one area in which it’s especially important to be prepared. This video about the abortion pill from Live Action is a good starting place to build practical knowledge for your next conversation. Check it out and share the video!

 

 





America’s Declining Biblical Worldview

I’ve often heard the term “worldview” compared to a pair of glasses—your worldview is the lens that sits right in front of your spiritual eyes and affects the way you see everything. If your glasses are scratched, the whole world will look scratched. If your glasses are smudged, the whole world will look smudged. And if your glasses are pink-tinted, the whole world will look pink. And so, the best way to deal with someone who insists the world is pink is not to endlessly debate back and forth about any particular object whose color you disagree about, but rather to change out their glasses for a pair that lets them see the world as it really is.

But your worldview is similar to your glasses in another way—both require intentional effort to maintain. Give someone a new pair of lenses, and they can quickly become scratched and smudged if they aren’t consciously taken care of and maintained. And in our fallen world, we encounter scratches and smudges in our culture every day.

The same is true of our worldview. Our fundamental beliefs about God, creation, man, sin, redemption, and the trajectory of history all prompt us to bend the information we receive in one way or another. Using the wrong worldview, we’ll see the world in a distorted, discolored, or downright smudgy manner. Using the correct worldview, we’ll see the world clearly as God sees it. But—just like with your physical glasses—merely starting off with a correct worldview does not guarantee a lifetime of wisdom. Your worldview must be guarded against the scratches of half-truths and compromises that will cause it to deteriorate over time. Such seems to be the case in America today.

A recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) reveals saddening trends in the American worldview. Although the study was not explicitly a “worldview survey”—it covered a wide variety of topics ranging from the economy to childbearing—a few of the poll’s questions shed light on how Americans’ deep worldview principles have changed over recent years.

Of today’s Americans, only 39% say that religion is very important to them, as opposed to 62% in 1998. Even as recently as 2019, approximately 50% of Americans affirmed this. Further, only 30% of today’s Americans say that having children is very important to them, a sharp decline from 1998’s count of approximately 60%. And since 2019’s percentage was still in the low 40’s, much of this decline appears to have happened just over the last three years. These declining numbers point to a decline in major tenets of the Christian worldview—God is the center of life and the most important focal point of it, and man is called to be fruitful and multiply.

Other factors, which are not as directly tied to one’s spiritual worldview, but important nonetheless, have declined as well: patriotism is “very important” to just under 40% of Americans (as opposed to almost 70% of 1998 America), and community involvement is approaching a meager 20% (contrasting with almost 50% in 1998).

Why are such principles—historically assumed to be “American values”—now on the decline? WSJ offers a possible explanation:

A number of events have shaken and in some ways fractured the nation since the Journal first asked about unifying values, among them the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent economic downturn and the rise of former President Donald Trump.

Well, that seems to be a decent partial explanation, especially for factors such as community involvement in the post-Covid world. However, it’s important not to take such materialistic explanations too far and think that as long as the country is clipping along in relative peace and prosperity, then Americans will begin to seek God again. One of the most repeated messages in the history of the Old Testament is that prosperity is actually a pitfall for godliness—when a nation is prosperous, she tends to forget God, because she assumes He is now unnecessary. And if a nation truly fears God, hardship will prompt her to call on Him in her distress. America’s declining Christian worldview is not merely a product of troublesome times. It is a symptom of spiritual decay.

So what is the spiritual solution? How do you restore something as fundamental as a nation’s worldview? Only the work of the almighty God can do that, but thankfully, God tends to leave the same sorts of fingerprints where He works. Dr. George Barna and Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center have identified seven basic beliefs strongly correlated with a biblical worldview; 80% of adults who adhere to them are classified as having a biblical worldview. As ACU puts it, they are:

1) An orthodox, biblical understanding of God.
2) All human beings are sinful by nature; every choice we make has moral considerations and consequences.
3) Knowing Jesus Christ is the only means to salvation, through our confession of sin and reliance on His forgiveness.
4) The entire Bible is true, reliable, and relevant, making it the best moral guide for every person, in all situations.
5) Absolute moral truth exists—and those truths are defined by God, described in the Bible, and are unchanging across time and cultures.
6) The ultimate purpose of human life is to know, love, and serve God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul.
7) Success on earth is best understood as consistent obedience to God—in thoughts, words, and actions.

On the one hand, none of these should be surprising. Didn’t I just list 7 biblical teachings? So am I not just basically saying “if you want a biblical worldview, you need to believe the Bible?” In a way, yes—the answer doesn’t get much more simple than that. God offers no substitute for repentance, and He offers no alternative framework for reality than His own inspired Word. If America is going to recover a Christian worldview, it will simply have to start believing the Word of God again, and it doesn’t get much simpler than that.

On the other hand, however, these seven tenets do provide us with a clarified look at the problem we face. The generalized and slightly nebulous question, “how well does my family/community/government believe the Bible?” can mean many different things to many different people. But these seven principles help us examine the specific ways in which our community is falling short, and thus specific directions for preaching the truth to those who need to hear it. Once we identify the individual scratches in a pair of glasses, it’s a lot easier to deal with them.

With these specific cornerstones of a biblical worldview identified, ACU found that only 3% of adults currently adhere to all seven. This means that 97% of adults have a sub-Biblical worldview. We have a lot of work to do.





Biblical Principles for the Education of Children

Any parent knows that trying to raise children is difficult. Especially if you are trying to raise your kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in a post-Christian society, such as our own. Everywhere you turn it seems like the world is trying to destroy any semblance of innocence in the hearts and minds of the youngest in society. How is a parent supposed to compete when the world is so dark? One of the most important decisions a Christian parent can make is where their children are going to go to school – who is going to be teaching them, and what are they going to be taught?

Well, the Village Church of Barrington recently held a seminar that helped to answer this question entitled: “Parenting in a Godless Culture: Educating Parents and Grandparents,”

Elder Greg Nash kicks the seminar off by discussing what the Bible says about educating children and why so many young adults and kids have a worldly worldview. Videos of each speaker have been posted online, and we’ve linked the first video here. Please be sure to watch and share!





Politics – A Worldview Apart

For Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, “Turn out the lights, the party’s over.” That’s particularly embarrassing for her because a sitting mayor is supposed to be reelected. She failed to impress voters, yet announced that Chicago moved forward during her term. Voters disagreed. Opponents pointed out the rise in crime and a consistently divisive leadership style.

So who is next up? We find out on April 4th when the top two vote-getters face a runoff election. Paul Vallas positions himself to be somewhat conservative in his approach to government. Brandon Johnson, the more liberal.

Both are experienced in the political arena. Paul Vallas is the former Chicago Public Schools CEO. He finished with almost 34% of the vote. Johnson is a Cook County Commissioner and drew 20.32% of the vote. He found heavy support from the educational community as a Chicago Teachers Union organizer.

Mayor Lightfoot finished third out of nine candidates. She garnered a weak 16.9% of the vote total. Lori was the first black female mayor in Chicago’s history and the first openly “gay” mayor.

Vallas is a family man. Paul and his wife, Sharon, raised three sons: Gus, Mark, and Paul Jr. Two of those men have gone on to public service careers.  The Vallas’s second born, Mark, died as a result of opioid abuse in 2018. Heartbreaking. His faith background is Greek Orthodox.

Brandon Johnson is also a family man. He resides on the west side of Chicago with wife Stacie and three children. He was born in Elgin. Brandon is the son of a pastor and one of ten siblings. It is said he was “raised on a foundation of hard work, faith, and service.” He ran as one of the most “progressive’ candidates on the ballot.

So both men “identify” with faith in the Christian tradition. However, that really does not tell us much. What we really need to know is how their faith shapes their worldview—which gives us a much better picture on how they will pursue political decisions that support (or do not support) healthy families.

For example, during the campaign, Paul Vallas was asked to clarify his views on abortion. To which he replied, “Fundamentally, I oppose abortion.” Then a spokeswoman for Vallas said he was referring to his Greek Orthodox faith, which opposes abortion.

When Vallas last ran for mayor in 2019, this was his posture on LGBTQ issues: “My approach has always been to embrace and support the LGBT community and let my actions speak louder than my words as I fight for rights and services for all Chicagoans.”

Here’s the other choice. On his brandonforchicago.com website, it was said “Brandon will transform Chicago into a national model for gender equity and reproductive rights, champion LGBTQ rights as human rights, and be a visible and vocal ally to creating safety and equal opportunity for the LGBTQ community.” Party line politics.

Same brandonforchicago.com website, this time on abortion. “There are three things I would like to make absolutely clear. One: abortion is health care. Two: abortion should be a constitutional right. Three: We will not accept an America – or a Chicago – that goes back in time. There is no middle ground on abortion.” He’s right on that last part!

Now the true colors are known of the moral positions of the two Chicago mayoral candidates. This defines their worldview. If you ask either candidate if they wish to govern with wisdom, no doubt they both would nod affirmatively. The writer of Proverbs makes it clear, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. (Proverbs 9:10, ESV)

Over the course of time in my role in talk radio, I would frequently ask political leaders or candidates this question: “What is your source of moral truth?” Several would stumble through their answer.

An important question, yes? I dare say, a critical question. Because that, in fact, identifies much about their worldview. We should not be afraid to ask our “leaders” (or candidates) about their worldview. Obviously, it will shape their public policy decisions.

What about your worldview? Does it need a tune-up? The Illinois Family Institute offers access to a number of worldview shaping events. There is one coming up on March 18th. You can find details on the IFI Events page.





What is the Church Teaching?

What do you expect from your church? Biblical preaching? A community where biblical values are exemplified by clergy and laity alike? A recent poll from George Barna’s Cultural Research Center (CRC) indicates that these are no longer reasonable expectations in American churches.

The CRC poll surveyed 1000 pastors from a variety of ecclesial traditions (Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Black Protestant, etc.), asking them to evaluate 54 worldview-related statements such as “Having faith matters more than which faith you have;” or “the Bible is ambiguous regarding abortion; it is possible to make a compelling biblical argument either for or against abortion.” On the basis of their responses, it would appear that a mere 37 percent of Christian pastors in the U.S. possess a biblical worldview. 

Among evangelical pastors, a biblical worldview was somewhat more common, but the numbers are hardly encouraging: only 51% percent of pastors in traditionally conservative denominations (Southern Baptist Convention, Presbyterian Church in America, Evangelical Free Church of America, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, etc.) met the standards for a biblical worldview.

The American Church, it seems, has fallen from its calling to be “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This begs the question, what is the Church teaching? If America’s pastors don’t have a biblical worldview, what kind of worldview is being propagated in America’s churches? The CRC poll’s results indicate that 62 percent of American pastors have a syncretistic worldview—a hodge-podge of biblical theism and whatever secular ideology was in vogue last Tuesday. One-third or more of senior pastors surveyed affirmed the statements “socialism is better than capitalism” and “sexual relations between two unmarried people who believe they love each other is morally acceptable.”

The problem, however, doesn’t just lie with America’s clergy. The results of the CRC’s poll implicate the laity as well. As St. Paul says, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4). America’s churchgoers, it would seem, have lost their taste for sound doctrine and would much rather have their itching ears tickled with pleasant words—words that won’t require them to stop sleeping around; words that won’t tell them to stop voting for pro-abortion candidates just because they were promised student loan forgiveness.

As bleak as the situation would appear to be, the solution is wonderfully simple: find a church that preaches the Word of God. Find a church that reads and/or exhorts passages of Scripture every Sunday. Find a church that isn’t afraid of taking on the cultural issues of the day and understand that the Bible is profitable “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Find a church that administers the sacraments in accordance with God’s Word. Find a church where the only new words you’re worried about your kids learning are words like “justification” and “eschatology.”

Moreover, if a faithful, Bible-believing church doesn’t exist in your community, is it too much to pull up stakes and move somewhere there is such a church? Or how about starting a new church? We are commanded to “test all things and hold fast to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and if your church can’t be trusted to show you and your family how to do that, it’s high time you found another church. And above all, every one of us ought to be praying that God would raise up men in our nation who, like St. Paul, can say “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ…” (1 Cor. 11:1).





Critical Race Theory Is Anti-Christian

Critical Race Theory is hard to understand, perhaps deliberately so. Its advocates use common terms differently than do the rest of us. For example, almost everybody associates “racist”[1] with someone who thinks one race is superior to others. But to these advocates, every American is automatically racist, even if no racial intent exists at all.

Even Christians are being deceived by Critical Race Theory. For example, one religious college held a conference that claimed “there is no such thing as being white and being a Christian.”[2] This statement underscores the need to understand the claims of Critical Race Theory and how it impacts Christianity. This article:

  • Provides a simplified definition of Critical Race Theory.
  • Examines its most important claims.
  • Compares these claims with what the Bible says about having equal justice for all.
  • Demonstrates that Critical Race Theory is anti-Christian, and wouldn’t fix racism anyway.
  • Shows that, although using Critical Race Theory is both illegal and unconstitutional, it is already found in our schools and government.
  • Asserts that this push for Critical Race Theory is an evangelistic push for the Marxist worldview. It’s a religious battle for American hearts.

The Bible is our baseline

The promoters of Critical Race Theory claim that America is racist, that:

…the United States was founded as a racist society, that racism is thus embedded in all social institutions, structures, and social relations within our society.[3]

One of these advocates, Robin DiAngelo,[4] in her book Is Everyone Really Equal?, says that:

we do not intend to inspire guilt or assign blame… But each of us does have a choice about whether we are going to work to interrupt and dismantle these systems [of injustice] or support their existence by ignoring them. There is no neutral ground; to choose not to act against injustice is to choose to allow it.[5]

These are strong assertions, but are they legitimate? To evaluate these claims we need to go back to first principles (Hebrews 5:12-14), such as why are we here, and what God has required of us. Otherwise, we can fall under the spell of false prophets (Deuteronomy 13:1-4). Remember what got Adam into the most trouble? It was deciding that he, himself, would decide what was right and wrong (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:4-6, 22-24).

The first thing to understand is that everything in the universe begins and ends with God. He created it (Genesis 1:1), judges the peoples throughout history (Leviticus 18:24-28; Jeremiah 18:5-10; Acts 12:21-23), and will bring all of creation to an end (Revelation 20:11-21:27). If short, everything always is all about Him (Colossians 1:15-17).

Once we understand that God is not an “absent watchmaker,” but one who even today interacts with His creation, we need to know what He requires of us. Sensible answers to this are found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, of 1648. Here are its first three questions.

1. What is the chief purpose for which man is made?
A: The chief purpose for which man is made is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

2. What rule has God given to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him?
A: The Word of God, which consists of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him.

3. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A: The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.[6]

We’re to search through the Bible to understand the meaning of right and wrong, how to interact righteously with each other, and how to build a God-fearing society. Then we’re to use our understanding in our personal and social activities. Religion is not merely what goes on in your head (James 2:14-26).

The Bible has plenty to say about justice and a just society. Here is a traditional on-line dictionary definition of justice:

  • the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
  • rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
  • the moral principle determining just conduct.
  • conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
  • the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
  • the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.[7]

That is, justice means having some standards by which your deeds or work will be measured, and then being impartially judged against those standards. Note that this particular on-line dictionary has this other definition:

  • just treatment of all members of society with regard to a specified public issue, including equitable distribution of resources and participation in decision-making[8]

By adding this new definition the editors are chasing “social justice,” which isn’t justice at all. In fact, this new clause contradicts the other clauses. For a more detailed discussion, see my previous article Social Justice: what does it really mean?[9]

In the United States our laws, our justice, are based on English common law, which in its turn comes from a Bible-based culture. We charge individuals, and bring them before judges, for actions they committed. There is no legal concept of group guilt, or that “it is society’s fault.”

One feature of true justice is the expectation of evenhandedness, that the judge, and jury if there is one, will impartially examine the facts and rule on them. They must not favor, or disfavor, a person because of wealth, fame, power, or race. As the Bible describes it:

  • Provide even-handed and truthful justice (Amos 5:12).
  • Give judgments that don’t favor either the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:5).
  • Be even-handed in our treatment the aliens in our midst (Deuteronomy 10:17-19).

With Christians there is to be no favoritism of men or women, or of race, in Christ Jesus (Acts 10:34-35; Galatians 3:28; I Timothy 5:21; James 2:1). A Christian society is to be no respecter of persons or of race – a colorblind society.

Now that have our baseline – that this is God’s show, and that we’re to build a just society according to God’s version of justice – we can examine Critical Race Theory and its claims.

What is Critical Race Theory?

It’s hard to find a simple description of Critical Race Theory. The most accessible one I’ve found comes from Got Questions, a reliable Christian blog:

Critical race theory is a modern approach to social change, developed from the broader critical theory, which developed out of Marxism. Critical race theory (CRT) approaches issues such as justice, racism, and inequality, with a specific intent of reforming or reshaping society. In practice, this is applied almost exclusively to the United States. Critical race theory is grounded in several key assumptions. Among these are the following:

    • American government, law, culture, and society are inherently and inescapably racist.
    • Everyone, even those without racist views, perpetuates racism by supporting those structures.
    • The personal perception of the oppressed—their “narrative”—outweighs the actions or intents of others.
    • Oppressed groups will never overcome disadvantages until the racist structures are replaced.
    • Oppressor race or class groups never change out of altruism; they only change for self-benefit.
    • Application of laws and fundamental rights should be different based on the race or class group of the individual(s) involved.

In short, critical race theory presupposes that everything about American society is thoroughly racist, and minority groups will never be equal until American society is entirely reformed. This position is extremely controversial, even in secular circles. Critical race theory is often posed as a solution to white supremacy or white nationalism. Yet, in practice, it essentially does nothing other than inverting the oppressed and oppressor groups.[10]

Critical Race Theory concepts, such as “each race gets different laws,” show its anti-Christian roots. If we should remake our society on its concepts, then we also abandon our society’s Christian worldview, beliefs, and laws. After all, no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). We either base our lives on honoring God’s word, or on dishonoring it.

How does Critical Race Theory dishonor Christianity? Let’s look at these key assumptions, to see if they align with a Christian worldview:

  • America is inescapably racist.
  • The personal perception of the oppressed trumps evidence.
  • Our laws should have on-purpose discrimination according to race.

Is America is inescapably racist? Or is it false guilt?

The Bible condemns racism. It is judging, and treating, people by their appearances (I Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:14-15; John 7:24). Our society is to have have equal justice for all, including any foreigners (Exodus 22:21; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34).

Is America now so racist that it can’t possibly be redeemed? Must our society be smashed and rebuilt, using blueprints provided by Critical Race Theory activists? Addressing these assertions requires a walk through American history.

  1. Early in American colonization, many places legalized the ownership of slaves.
  2. In forming our new nation, the Founding Fathers recognized that some states had, and liked, their “peculiar institution” of slavery[11] But the founders also looked at ending slavery, such as through the Constitution’s Slave Trade Clause.[12]
  3. The long-forecast reckoning with slavery occurred with the American Civil War. In its aftermath, the Constitution was changed to ban slavery (13th Amendment), prevent racial discrimination in laws (14th Amendment), and guarantee voting rights regardless of race (15th Amendment).[13]
  4. However, the former slave states still retained much racial animus. For example, the “separate but equal” discrimination against black people.[14]
  5. Not until the 1950s did we see the breaking of “separate but equal” laws.[15]
  6. In the 1960s came new laws, such as the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act. These laws were effective in removing obstacles to racial equality, letting black people finally enjoy their Constitutional rights.
  7. In our current era there are few incidents of actual racism. After all, if there were actual incidents then we’d hear about them. There are stories of people making false claims,[16] but fake racism wouldn’t be needed where the real thing was easy to find. And if real racist acts do occur, you’ll see prosecutors jumping to indict people. You’d also hear about the incidents from any number of watchdog organizations.

When you peruse this timeline you see a trend towards a race-neutral society. Our progress has been jumpy, but America has been “escaping from racism” for a long while. However, the advocates of Critical Race Theory think otherwise, that racism is in the very air we breathe. DiAngelo says:

“Antiracist education recognizes racism as embedded in all aspects of society and the socialization process; no one who is born into and raised in Western culture can escape being socialized to participate in racist relations.”[17]

How do they justify this claim? After all, they don’t have racist incidents to support their arguments. Rather, they look to statistics, to spreadsheets, saying that “unequal outcomes” between racial groups amounts to “systemic racism.”[18] They find, or create, studies that makes their arguments look good, and call it proof.

Let’s look at one prominent claim. Studies show that black people are jailed at a much higher rate than are non-blacks.[19] The advocates claim that this disparity proves racism. I see the higher rate, but I don’t buy that this is racism. It looks more like the disparity in jailing is influenced by the effects of many unrelated decisions. Not that this is the only rational explanation, but it’s a reasonable and non-racist one. This is my explanation:

  • Since the 1960s American industry largely left the cities. Thanks to improved transportation methods, factories could satisfy their customers even from foreign locations. Was this trend caused by many decisions of individual company presidents? Was it encouraged by the lack of government policies to keep factory jobs here? Whatever the reasons, one effect of this trend has been cities lacking jobs having “raise a family” wages.
  • In its “War on Poverty” initiative, the federal government made policies that discouraged welfare recipients from being married.[20] You now see a great many unwed mothers in the urban black community, proportionally far more than for any other group of American society. Without fathers at home, how do urban black youths learn good morals? And why try to excel at school if there won’t be good jobs waiting for them when they graduate?
  • Law enforcement in American cities have largely given up trying to stop people from buying “recreational drugs.” The demand for these drugs is being satisfied through urban street gangs. A lot of idle urban youth will join these gangs for money and a sense of belonging. However, gang warfare is the major driver of murder and violence in our cities.[21] So we see high rates of black arrests, along with the resulting convictions.

Our suburbs don’t have these same circumstances. The people who live there already have good jobs. They tend to have stable two-parent families, who train their children to be responsible citizens. Drug dealers avoid these suburbs, and there are fewer opportunities to get involved in street gangs. Hence, suburbanites have fewer temptations to crime.

It isn’t that black people are prone to crime any more than are non-black people. But enough of them in the cities yield to temptations, then do crimes for which they’re jailed. And their stories become part of arguments about disparities in incarcerations. That said, where is the racism in all of this?

  • The individual decisions about factory locations weren’t racist.
  • The policies about welfare and single-mothers weren’t racist.
  • The policies about not persecuting drug users, and instead going after drug sellers, wasn’t racist. By the way, it was the same policy used in the Prohibition era.
  • The theft, or murder, was probably of another black person. That wasn’t racism.

Yet the bottom line is supposedly invisible systemic racism, because black people are in jail more often. Suppose that the decisions turned out somehow different, and non-white people had the higher incarceration rates. According to the advocates, that outcome isn’t racism. On this DiAngelo says:

“This chapter also explains the difference between concepts such as race prejudice, which anyone can hold, and racism, which occurs at the group level and is only perpetuated by the group that holds social, ideological, economic, and institutional power.”[22]

That is, non-whites can’t experience racism. To Critical Race Theory advocates, statistical outcomes become racist proofs only if the outcomes support their arguments. Their cries of “racism!” are phony, because there isn’t any actual racism going on. They’re complaining about certain supportive statistics. Their goal isn’t to fix racism, but to inflict America with a false guilt about it.

To finish this discussion on racism, what wisdom do these Critical Race Theory advocates have for bringing true racial harmony? As we’ll see in later sections, they only want to bring more racism, and more pointed than ever.

What have we learned about claims of American racism?

  • America is not “inescapably racist.”
  • It is hard to fix problems by instituting policies. As with the decisions affecting the jobs in our cities, there can be many unexpected side effects.
  • The Critical Race Theory advocates can’t find actual racism in America. They wave around selected studies and call it proof of racism.
  • The accusations of “systemic racism” are meant to trigger false guilt.

Do personal perceptions trump evidence?

You’ve just been accused, and the charges are quite serious. What process will be used to judge your guilt or innocence? The answer to this depends on whether you have Bible-based justice, or justice according to Critical Race Theory.

The Bible says that because God shows no favoritism (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25), our judgments shouldn’t either. We must confine our judgments to the evidence (Deuteronomy 19:15-19; Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1, I John 4:1-3). We must not be influenced by money, power, friendship, or race (Exodus 23:8; Leviticus 19:15; James 2:1). Finally, an informed verdict can be reached only after both the accusers and defendants have been heard from (Proverbs 18:17). The American legal system follows this pattern because is based on English common law.

However, if our society is rebuilt around ideas from Critical Race Theory, then the standards for evidence will change. Critical Race Theory wants us to consider personal perceptions, sometimes called “life experiences” or anecdotes, as being unassailable truth.

For example, a signature of CRT is revisionist history. This method “reexamines America’s historical record” to replace narratives that only reflect the majority perspective with those that include the perspectives and lived experiences of minority populations. In this way revisionist history attempts “to unearth little-known chapters of racial struggle” that can validate the current experiences of minorities and support the desire for change. This is just one example of how CRT can be used to elevate minority voices and work towards equity….

This means that the community and their experience is only seen through the filter of the dominant culture. To resist this erasure, counter-storytelling creates space for community voices to create the narrative that defines their own experiences and lives. By giving power to the voices of individuals and communities, counter-storytelling fights against the dominant culture narratives that lack the knowledge and wisdom that minority individuals hold about themselves and their traditions, cultures, communities, homes, struggles, and needs.[23]

In “replacing narratives” the activists aren’t talking about remaking old movies to include minority subplots. Rather, laws and policies would be rewritten, influenced by anecdotal testimony. The “knowledge and wisdom that minority individuals hold” would acquire the same legal weight as findings of fact by a court. Says the American Bar Association:

Therefore, as many critical race theorists have noted, CRT calls for a radical reordering of society and a reckoning with the structures and systems that intersect to perpetuate racial inequality.

For civil rights lawyers, this necessitates an examination of the legal system and the ways it reproduces racial injustice. It also necessitates a rethinking of interpersonal interactions, including the role of the civil rights lawyer. It means a centering of the stories and voices of those who are impacted by the laws, systems, and structures that so many civil rights advocates work to improve.[24]

This “centering on the stories” intends to use the experiences as though they were validated facts. The idea is to shut down dissent, crediting these storytellers with “absolute moral authority.”

Storytelling serves a particularly important function in CRT. Since each identity group has “different histories and experiences with oppression,” this gives “black, Indian, Asian, or Latino/a writers and thinkers” a unique voice that may be able to “communicate to their white counterparts matters that the whites are unlikely to know.” Because they are minorities, they alone are uniquely capable of speaking about their experience of oppression. This has led some CRT proponents to tell white people they have no right to dispute any claims about the lived experience of any minorities, and that, instead, oppressors should just shut up and listen (an actual term in CRT) to the stories of marginalized peoples.[25]

That roughly means “you’re guilty because I say so.” Compare that to the Bible: “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (John 7:51). There is no justice if only one side in a trial gets to present evidence. What’s more, the testimony and evidence must itself be tested. For example, a judge makes witnesses swear that they’re telling the truth. The courts know that people, even those having “absolute moral authority,” sometimes make things up.

The advocates of Critical Race Theory won’t stop at changing our legal system. To achieve their goal of breaking American society, they want our cultural communities to believe that they have nothing in common with anybody else.

One of the greatest concerns over CRT is that it denies the importance of being able to reason in a dialogue or debate. Traditional ways of establishing truth—through empirical evidence, rational argument, or even the scriptures, are considered to be forms of investigation that come from “white, male-centered forms of thinking that have characterized much of Western thought.” They also argue that “objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.”

Since members of any hegemonic group (especially white males) can never understand the experience of a member of a minority group, critical race theorists say persons of a dominant race are never permitted to dispute the views of a person in a minority group who is sharing their lived experience of oppression. Determining truth through individual perspective is called standpoint epistemology. This is why the phrase “that’s your truth” is popular in our culture.[26]

If they’re successful in convincing communities that they can have their own facts, their own truth, then that would break American culture. After all, what is culture but the overwhelming consensus of shared beliefs and customs? They would replace our culture with tribalism, with each community fighting for a share of power and resources. And in a land of non-cooperating interests, most anything can become possible, especially for men with evil intent.

What have we learned about using personal perceptions as evidence?

  • When judging a case, testimony from both sides is needed.
  • All of the evidence and testimony must be tested for truthfulness.
  • “Lived experiences” are pushed not for its truthfulness, but to silence opponents.
  • Critical Race Theory advocates want to break America’s cultural consensus.
  • A land without common beliefs is not a nation. It is ripe to be remade into something else.

Deliberately adding discrimination to our laws

The Bible speaks of equality in how we’re ruled and judged (Exodus 23:6-9; Leviticus 19:15; II Chronicles 19:5-7; Galatians 3:28). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[27] sought this equality for each of his children when he said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character.[28]

But Critical Race Theory advocates don’t want to see racial equality. That would hinder their goal to replace our individualist culture with a form of group or class struggle.

With regard to public policy, critical race theory’s key analytical and rhetorical framework is to portray every instance of racial disparity as evidence of racial discrimination. In the metaphor of one recent paper, “white supremacy” is the “spider in our web of causation” that leads to “immense disparity in wealth, access to resources, segregation, and thus, family well-being.”  To adopt the vocabulary of the race theorists, the forces of “hegemonic whiteness” have created society’s current inequalities, which we can overcome only by “dismantling,” “decolonizing,” and “deconstructing” that whiteness.  In their theoretical formulations, the critical race theorists reduce the social order to an equation of power, which they propose to overturn through a countervailing application of force.

Practically, by defining every disparity between racial groups as an expression of “systemic racism,” the critical race theorists lay the foundation for a political program of revolution. If, in the widely traveled phrase of author bell hooks, American society is an “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” radical changes are needed. Although critical race theory has sought in some cases to distinguish itself from Marxism, the leading policy proposals from critical race theorists are focused on the race-based redistribution of wealth and power—a kind of identity-based rather than class-based Marxism.[29]

If these advocates get their way, America would know more racial conflict than ever. But this time each racial group would be fighting to get money and property already controlled by the other groups. They’d be looking for the government to discriminate, this time in their favor.

In one of the founding texts of critical race theory, Cheryl Harris argues that property rights, enshrined in the Constitution, are in actuality a form of white racial domination. She claims that “whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property, historically and presently acknowledged and protected in American law,” and that “the existing state of inequitable distribution is the product of institutionalized white supremacy and economic exploitation, [which] is seen by whites as part of the natural order of things that cannot legitimately be disturbed.”

Harris, on the other hand, believes that this system must be disturbed, even subverted. She argues that the basic conceptual vocabulary of the constructional system—“‘rights,’ ‘equality,’ ‘property,’ ‘neutrality,’ and ‘power’”—are mere illusions used to maintain a white-dominated racial hierarchy. In reality, Harris believes, “rights mean shields from interference; equality means formal equality; property means the settled expectations that are to be protected; neutrality means the existing distribution, which is natural; and, power is the mechanism for guarding all of this.”

The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection—which she calls “mere nondiscrimination”—with a system of positive discrimination tasked with “redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution based on the African decolonial model. Harris envisions a suspension of existing property rights followed by a governmental campaign to “address directly the distribution of property and power” through wealth confiscation and race-based redistribution. “Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.  In Harris’s formulation, if rights are a mechanism of white supremacy, they must be curtailed; the imperative of addressing race-based disparities must be given priority over the constitutional guarantees of equality, property, and neutrality.[30]

Our new “anti-racist” society would steal (redistribute) to satisfy claimed wrongs, and would keep stealing: “property rights…will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action”. To enable this redistribution, the government would nationalize property. You’d merely get to hold onto “your stuff” until they find a need for it. America would have all of the hallmarks of biblically corrupt government: discrimination, favoritism, bribery, theft, and no fear of God. The Thirteen Colonies went to war with England over less tyranny than that.[31]

So far we’ve seen that Critical Race Theory:

  • Can’t find actual racism in America, only invented statistics.
  • Would weaken justice by accepting anecdotal stories as though they were verified truth.
  • Would replace our largely-Christian worldview with something foreign.
  • Would introduce permanent forms of discrimination and racism.

People are listening to Critical Race Theory, and think that there must be good in there somewhere. However, the Bible says that “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:15-20). Critical Race Theory comes out of Marxism, a very bad tree.

In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of white and black. However, the political foundations of critical race theory maintain a clear Marxist economic orientation.[32]

Christians can’t accept the claims of Critical Race Theory and also remain true to God. After all, no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Critical Race Theory is the gospel of an anti-Christian worldview.

Critical Race Theory is already in our schools

We know that Critical Race Theory means to destroy our society. So why are our schools, both public[33] and private,[34] teaching it to our children? Perhaps some teachers don’t know any better, but their unions are certainly pushing it. At the National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, its delegates passed these resolutions about Critical Race Theory.

The resolution “New Business Item A” further encourages teaching the theory in schools.

The National Education Association, in coordination with national partners, NEA state and local affiliates, racial justice advocates, allies, and community activists, shall build powerful education communities and continue our work together to eradicate institutional racism in our public school system by:

2. Supporting and leading campaigns that:

Result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic (Native people, Asian, Black, Latin(o/a/x), Middle Eastern, North African, and Pacific Islander) Studies curriculum in pre- K-12 and higher education;[35]

The resolution “New Business Item 39” instructs teachers to fight through parent opposition.

The NEA will, with guidance on implementation from the NEA president and chairs of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Caucuses:

A. Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) — what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members.

C. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.

E. Conduct a virtual listening tour that will educate members on the tools and resources needed to defend honesty in education including but not limited to tools like CRT.

F. Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.[36]

The resolution “New Business Item 2” authorizes spending money on opposition research.

NEA will research the organizations attacking educators doing anti-racist work and/or use the research already done and put together a list of resources and recommendations for state affiliates, locals, and individual educators to utilize when they are attacked. The research, resources, and recommendations will be shared with members through NEA’s social media, an article in NEA Today, and a recorded virtual presentation/webinar.[37]

The NEA has gone all-in on Critical Race Theory, committing resources so that “our members can continue this important work.”[38] The American Federation of Teachers prefers to obfuscate, pretending to not teach Critical Race Theory by instead calling it “honest history.”[39] What these unions are doing underscores the trend in schools nationwide. They encourage the schools to teach what they please, and then to hide their doings.[40] Sometimes they’ll resort to the courts to keep an investigation at bay.[41]

There are dozens of articles about schools hiding their curriculum from the parents. Listing them might lead you to outrage at their audacity, but won’t help you to solve anything. Instead, here are some resources to help you monitor and influence your schools.

Discusses buzzwords like social justice, equity, diversity training, anti-racism, culturally responsive pedagogy, anti-bias, inclusion. Reminds you to talk to your children about what they’re learning. Gives suggestions on auditing your school board.

Discusses buzzwords like “systemic racism,” whiteness, equity, “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).” Provides details on how to properly monitor and audit your school board, such as filing FOIA requests, engaging your school board. Encourages you to be a whistleblower about any moves to teach Critical Race Theory concepts in your local schools.

Lists buzzwords with their definitions, too many of them to show here. But its most important resource is is a downloadable PDF.[45] This document describes Critical Race Theory, shows you how to build a network of activists to monitor your school board, and finally how to become your school board. After all, the incumbents are showing that they’re unfit to teach your children. Why not replace them?

Lists 86 terms frequently found when discussing Critical Race Theory. Since saying “Critical Race Theory” gives away their game, buzzwords are used in internal school communications.

This site is primarily concerned with how colleges and universities are handling Critical Race Theory. Has an institution issued a statement on Critical Race Theory, or put it into its lesson plans? It gets listed here. As a bonus, it has lists of articles in these categories:

    • A long, and readable, description of Critical Race Theory. It also has many articles on rebutting it.
    • Lists of articles tracking how Critical Race Theory is being spread in elementary and high schools.
    • Lists of articles tracking the “1619 Project,” bad history that works hand-in-hand with Critical Race Theory.

When misdirecting you, school administrators will tell you things like “We talk about the Civil Rights Movement. We talk about the causes of the Civil War, we talk about the experiences of Black Americans, of white Americans. It’s comprehensive history, but it’s not critical race theory.”[48] They misdirect you. Our complaints aren’t really with the history topics. It’s with the added Critical Race Theory spin.

Critical Race Theory is unconstitutional

When officials plan and govern, they’re bound by what the law says. They’re not free to act according to what they’d like the law to be. But with Critical Race Theory we have officials not respecting the law. As examples:

  • An Evanston, IL, public school teacher sued her school board about its Critical Race Theory training. She asserts that the emphasis on equity violates Constitutional provisions of non-discrimination. The school board excused its actions in this statement:

“When you challenge policies and protocols established to ensure an equitable experience for Black and brown students,” the board reportedly said in an open letter, “you are part of a continuum of resistance to equity and desire to maintain white supremacy.”[49]

  • Five thousand public school teachers vow to base their lessons on Critical Race Theory, even when they’re legally banned from doing so.[50] Said one signatory: “I refuse to teach my students an alternate history rewritten by the suppressors in power.”
  • President Biden issued an executive order meant to result in race-consciousness in the hiring and firing of federal employees.[51] It “establishes an ambitious, whole-of-government initiative that will take a systematic approach to embedding DEIA [diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility] in Federal hiring and employment practices.” If this order is allowed to stand, it would result in having the entire government filled only with advocates of Critical Race Theory. It also would mean official sanction of “anti-racist” discrimination.

Even school board officials take an oath of office. In Illinois this oath includes a promise to obey the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and state laws.[52] When they plot to implement Critical Race Theory they violate these oaths. Where is the punishment for violating their oaths?

Getting to the bottom of things, laws and government policies that implement Critical Race Theory are unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment of individuals regardless of race. But policies incorporating Critical Race Theory – whether “equitable experience,” or “embedding diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in Federal hiring and employment practices” – amount to discrimination on basis of race. In Montana, its Attorney General was asked to weigh in on the legality of Critical Race Theory. This was his response:

Knudsen’s “list of widely reported ‘antiracist’ and CRT-related activities that … violate federal and state law” includes:

    • “segregating students or administrators in a professional development training into groups on the basis of race”;

    • “ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or to an individual because of his or her race”;

    • forcing individuals “to admit privilege” or punishing them for failing to do so;

    • forcing members of certain races “to ‘reflect,’ ‘deconstruct,’ or ‘confront’ their racial identities or be instructed to be ‘less white’ (or less of any other race, ethnicity, or national origin)”;

    • “instructing students that all white people perpetuate systemic racism or that all white people are born racist”;

    • “asserting that an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or that individuals need to be ‘accountable’ due solely to their race, or that they are ‘culpable’ solely due to their race.”[53]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans use of racial preferences or discrimination.[54] But even if this Act gets changed, the Constitution still requires equal treatment regardless of race. However, Critical Race Theory demands continuing discrimination, calling it “anti-racism.” The activist Ibram Kendi[55] comments on this reverse racism:

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.[56]

If you fill the government with Critical Race Theory advocates you will get discrimination in every policy and decision. Although Critical Race Theory advocates scream about systemic racism, if you let them have their way we’ll get actual systemic racism. And that part about being unconstitutional? Kendi’s answer is to change the U.S. Constitution.

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.[57]

Kendi’s desire for an Amendment shows that even he knows that Critical Race Theory is unconstitutional. He also shows that the advocates’ end game even includes controlling your every thought (“change their racist policy and ideas”).

Worldviews have consequences

Your worldview helps you understand the things around you, interpret the events you get involved with, and influences how you should treat the people you meet. In practice, your worldview is based on your religious beliefs. Let’s compare a Christian worldview with one based on Critical Race Theory.

In a Christian worldview everything revolves around God. The universe is created by Him for His pleasure and purpose. We use the Bible to understand God’s nature, to find patterns for organizing our lives and society, and to give us perspective. From the Bible we learn that God is concerned for each of us individually (Matthew 10:29-31; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11-12), and that we will individually stand before His judgment seat (Romans 14:10-12).

Regarding science, the Bible shows us that the universe runs by God’s laws (Jeremiah 33:25-26). Because God is both its designer and creator, and that nothing exists except that which He created, this implies that the universe is orderly, having predicable behavior.

The Bible has relatively little to say about the natural world, but at least the book of Genesis makes it clear where the universe came from. It is not eternal but created by God at the beginning of time. In the fourth century, St. Augustine clarified the doctrine that the world was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. God did not use preexisting material whose properties He had to work with. Thus, as Genesis affirms, creation was “good” and as God wished it to be.

From the twelfth century, Christian theologians began to explore what this meant in practice. One consequence was that nature was separate from God and followed the laws He had ordained for it.[58]

Observing the world, and discovering its predictable behaviors, pretty much describes science. Why was the scientific approach peculiar to Christianity? Because if your non-Christian worldview believes there is still caprice in how the world behaves, then why bother looking for patterns? This is why science first flourished in Christian societies.

Critical Race Theory is also a worldview, representing the religion of Marxist humanism. Marxism asserts that there is no God, and that we all must live to maximize mankind’s physical potentials. Marxism has regard for different “classes” of people, but not for the individuals themselves. Each of us are merely servants for the collective: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”[59]

(Of course Marxism is a religion. For proof, see my article Socialism is also a religion.[60] Another great resource on this is The Anti-Marxist Marxist: A Response to Christianity Today.[61])

As a stand-in for Marxism, what does Critical Race Theory say about science? Science is what you want it to be. DiAngelo says:

By socially constructed, we mean that all knowledge understood by humans is framed by the ideologies, language, beliefs, and customs of human societies. Even the field of science is subjective”[62]

And what about truth? Again, truth is what you need it to be. DiAngelo also says:

“Critical theory challenges the claim that any knowledge is neutral or objective, and outside of humanly constructed meanings and interests.”[63]

The premier example of “science becomes what you want it to be” is the reign of Trofim Lysenko[64] over agriculture in the Soviet Union. Seeking to prove that socialism had superior science, the claimed to be able to turn wheat plants into rye, described as “equivalent to saying that dogs living in the wild give birth to foxes.”[65] This sort of science was justly criticized:

“Science cannot long remain unfettered in a social system which seeks to exercise control over the whole spiritual and intellectual life of a nation. The correctness of a scientific theory can never by adjudged by its readiness to give the answers desired by political leadership.”[66]

I suppose that this is how you get men thinking that, because they claim to be women, that they really are women. Then they demand that the world accommodate them.[67] When science and facts themselves depend on who wants them to be true we enter the world of the novel 1984,[68] where the past was being continually rewritten to suit current politics.[69]

Preserving our Christian America is where YOU come in

The arguments over Critical Race Theory boil down to Marxist evangelists trying to woo America out of its Christian beliefs. Will they succeed in impressing the public with their worldview? That depends on what American Christians do.

We can succumb to Marxism because we’re weary of being picked on. Or we can renew our evangelistic commission, and again preach Jesus’ lordship (Matthew 28:18-20). We preach His lordship not only by traditional evangelism, but also by insisting on Christian righteousness in our workplace, where we shop, our schools – everywhere we go. We are the yeast that is to transform society (Matthew 13:33).[70] Don’t be shy about your beliefs. This sort of evangelism is what we can do, and should do, every day.

Some of us will be attacked and have to defend ourselves. For example, that mandatory “diversity training.” But in defending Christianity, and our Christian worldview, we remind the others that their new values are merely a replacement religion. As a bonus, we get to use the civil rights laws in our defense, much like Paul did (Acts 16:35-40; 22:22-29), and prevail in unexpected ways.

If we pray, and not hide our Christian beliefs and activities, God will work through us, that we might prevail. Remember that the battle is the Lord’s (I Samuel 17:45-47; II Chronicles 20:14-17; II Corinthians 10:3-5).

This article is also available at FixThisCulture.com. 


Footnotes

[1]     Racist, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

[2]     Dismantling Whiteness: Critical White Theology, University of Oxford, April 17, 2021, https://www.ox.ac.uk/event/dismantling-whiteness-critical-white-theology

[3]     Cole, Dr. Nicki, Definition of Systemic Racism in Sociology, ThoughtCo, July 21, 2020, https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

[4]     Robin DiAngelo, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_DiAngelo

[5]     Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021, https://shenviapologetics.com/quotes-from-sensoy-and-diangelos-is-everyone-really-equal/ (Shenvi is quoting DiAngelo, Robin, and Sensoy, Özlem.)

[6]     The Westminster Shorter Catechism, WSC, https://matt2819.com/wsc/

[7]     Justice, Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice

[8]     Ibid.

[9]     Perry, Oliver, Social Justice: what does it really mean?, Fix This Culture blog, July 27, 2019, https://fixthisculture.com/buzzwords/social-justice-what-does-it-really-mean/

[10]   What is the critical race theory?, Got Questions, https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-race-theory.html

[11]   Peculiar Institution, Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/peculiar-institution

[12]   Lloyd, Gordon and Martinez, Jenny, The Slave Trade Clause, Interactive Constitution of the National Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/761

[13]   Schmidt, Ann, The US Constitution has 27 amendments that protect the rights of Americans. Do you know them all?, Insider, January 7, 2021, https://www.insider.com/what-are-all-the-amendments-us-constitution-meaning-history-2018-11

[14]   Plessy v. Ferguson, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

[15]   Brown v. Board of Education, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

[16]   Prager, Dennis, If America Is So Racist, Why Are There So Many Race Hoaxes?, Townhall, July 7, 2020, https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2020/07/07/if-america-is-so-racist-why-are-there-so-many-race-hoaxes-n2571987

[17]   Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021

[18]   Burton, Kelly, 100 Statistics that Prove Systemic Racism is a Thing, LinkedIn, July 13, 2020, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/100-statistics-prove-systemic-racism-thing-kelly-burton-phd

[19]   Lemoine, Philippe, On the racial disparity in incarceration rates, NEC PLURIBUS IMPAR, March 2, 2017, https://necpluribusimpar.net/racial-disparity-incarceration-rates/

[20]   Rector, Robert, How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It, The Heritage Foundation, November 17, 2014, https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-do-about-it

[21]   Ryan, Jason, Gangs Blamed for 80 Percent of U.S. Crimes, ABC News, January 30, 2009, https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1

[22]   Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021

[23]   Castelli, Mateo and Castelli, Luna, Introduction to Critical Race Theory and Counter-storytelling, Noise Project, https://noiseproject.org/learn/introduction-to-critical-race-theory-and-counter-storytelling/

[24]   George, Janel, A Lesson on Critical Race Theory, American Bar Association, January 11, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

[25]   Lesperance, Diana, CRITICAL RACE THEORY: An Introduction from a Biblical and Historical Perspective, The Faithful Church, August 18, 2020, https://thefaithfulchurch.com/2020/08/18/critical-race-theory-an-introduction-from-a-biblical-and-historical-perspective/

[26]   Ibid.

[27]   Martin Luther King, Jr., Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

[28]   King, Dr. Martin Luther, Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr: I have a dream speech (1963), U.S. Embassy and Consulate in the Republic of Korea, https://kr.usembassy.gov/education-culture/infopedia-usa/living-documents-american-history-democracy/martin-luther-king-jr-dream-speech-1963/

[29]   Rufo, Christopher, Critical Race Theory Would Not Solve Racial Inequality: It Would Deepen It, The Heritage Foundation, March 23, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/critical-race-theory-would-not-solve-racial-inequality-it-would-deepen-it

[30]   Ibid. 

[31]   Declaration of Independence: A Transcription, National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

[32]   Rufo, Christopher, Critical Race Theory Would Not Solve Racial Inequality: It Would Deepen It, The Heritage Foundation, March 23, 2021

[33]   Higgins, Laurie, Despite Nationwide Condemnation, Illinois Passes Leftist Teacher-Training Mandate, Illinois Family Institute, February 18, 2021, https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/education/despite-nationwide-condemnation-illinois-passes-controversial-leftist-teacher-training-mandate/

[34]   Neese, Alissa Widman, What is critical race theory? The controversy has arrived at Columbus Academy and here’s what we know, The Columbus Dispatch, July 9, 2021, https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2021/07/09/ohio-columbus-academys-critical-race-theory-issue-what-know/7913212002/

[35]   New Business Item A (adopted), archived from National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, https://web.archive.org/web/20210704150901/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-00a/

[36]   New Business Item 39 (adopted as modified), archived from National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, https://web.archive.org/web/20210704151536/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/

[37]   New Business Item 2 (adopted as amended), archived from National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, https://web.archive.org/web/20210701134801/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-002/

[38]   Ibid.

[39]   Stepman, Jarrett, Critical Race Theory in Classrooms Isn’t Just About Teaching ‘Honest History’, The Daily Signal, July 23, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/23/critical-race-theory-in-classrooms-isnt-just-about-teaching-honest-history/

[40]   Knighton, Tom, Schools Trying To Get Critical Race Theory Into Classrooms Under Parents’ Noses, Tilting at Windmills, July 28, 2021, https://tomknighton.substack.com/p/schools-trying-to-get-critical-race

[41]   Solas, Nicole, I’m A Mom Seeking Records Of Critical Race and Gender Curriculum, Now The School Committee May Sue To Stop Me (Update), Legal Insurrection, June 1, 2021, https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/06/im-a-mom-seeking-records-of-critical-race-and-gender-curriculum-now-the-school-committee-may-sue-to-stop-me/

[42]   Barrett, Julie, How To See If Critical Race Theory Is In Your Kids’ School—And Fight It, The Federalist, August 18, 2021, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/18/how-to-see-if-critical-race-theory-is-in-your-kids-school-and-fight-it/

[43]   How to Identify Critical Race Theory, The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/heritage-explains/how-identify-critical-race-theory

[44]   Roberts, Kevin, Ph.D, How will you know if critical race theory is taught in your child’s school?, The Cannon Online, July 1, 2021, https://thecannononline.com/how-will-you-know-if-critical-race-theory-is-taught-in-your-childs-school/

[45]   TOOLKIT: COMBATTING CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN YOUR COMMUNITY, Citizens for Renewing America, June 8, 2021, https://citizensrenewingamerica.com/issues/combatting-critical-race-theory-in-your-community/

[46]   LIST: CRITICAL RACE THEORY TERMS, Center for Renewing America, May 25, 2021, https://americarenewing.com/issues/list-critical-race-theory-buzzwords/

[47]   Critical Race Training in Higher Education, https://criticalrace.org/

[48]   Roberts, Kevin, Ph.D, How will you know if critical race theory is taught in your child’s school?, The Cannon Online, July 1, 2021

[49]   Dorman, Sam, Illinois teacher sues school district, claims ‘equity’ push violates US Constitution, Fox News, June 29, 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/us/evanston-illinois-teacher-lawsuit-equity-trainings

[50]   Nester, Alex, Thousands of Teachers Vow To Defy State Bans on Critical Race Theory, Washington Free Beacon, July 9, 2021, https://freebeacon.com/campus/thousands-of-teachers-vow-to-defy-state-bans-on-critical-race-theory/

[51]   Ginsberg, Michael, Biden Executive Order Mandates Divisive, Unscientific Race ‘Training’ At Every Level Of The Federal Government, Daily Caller, June 26, 2021, https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/26/biden-executive-order-crt-diversity-equity-government/

[52]   Oath of Office: School board members, before taking their seats on the board, are required to take an official oath, Illinois Association of School Boards, https://www.iasb.com/conference-training-and-events/training/training-resources/oath-of-office/

[53]   Critical Race Theory pedagogy already illegal, Montana attorney general holds, American Enterprise Institute, June 4, 2021, https://www.aei.org/education/critical-race-theory-pedagogy-already-illegal-montana-attorney-general-holds/

[54]   Canaparo, GianCarlo and Stimson, Charles, Judge Defends Equal Justice Against Tide of Critical Race Theory, Disparate Impact, The Heritage Society, August 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/judge-defends-equal-justice-against-tide-critical-race-theory-disparate

[55]   Ibram X. Kendi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi

[56]   Kendi, Ibram, How to Be an Antiracist, What I’ve Been Reading, https://highlights.sawyerh.com/highlights/Wc3cIP436n60JRoYYTVe

[57]   Kendi, Ibram, Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment, Politico, September 2019, https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/

[58]   Hannam, John, How Christianity Led to the Rise of Modern Science, Christian Research Institute, January 17, 2017, https://www.equip.org/article/christianity-led-rise-modern-science/

[59]   From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

[60]   Perry, Oliver, Socialism is also a religion, Fix This Culture blog, May 31, 2019, https://fixthisculture.com/socialism/socialism-is-also-a-religion/

[61]   Bair, Phil, The Anti-Marxist Marxist: A Response to Christianity Today, Free Thinking Ministries, July 25, 2020, https://freethinkingministries.com/the-anti-marxist-marxist-a-response-to-christianity-today/

[62]   Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021

[63]   Ibid.

[64]   Trofim Lysenko, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

[65]   Trofim Lysenko, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Trofim-Lysenko

[66]   Zielinski, Sarah, When the Soviet Union Chose the Wrong Side on Genetics and Evolution, Smithsonian Magazine, February 1, 2010, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-the-soviet-union-chose-the-wrong-side-on-genetics-and-evolution-23179035/

[67]   Koreatown’s Wi Spa At Center Of Controversy After Complaint About Transgender Customer, CBS Los Angeles, June 30, 2021, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/koreatowns-wi-spa-at-center-of-controversy-after-complaint-about-transgender-customer/ar-AALDIeM

[68]   Nineteen Eighty-Four, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

[69]   1984 (George Orwell), Manipulation of History, Spark Notes, https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/quotes/theme/manipulation-of-history/

[70]   Perry, Oliver, Yeast Wars: Rebuilding an American Christian Consensus, Fix This Culture blog, January 8, 2020, https://fixthisculture.com/religion/yeast-wars-rebuilding-an-american-christian-consensus/




The House is on Fire

Why Christians must engage the culture on sexual ethics or be responsible for our civilization’s demise

As a Christian pastor, I am seeing a dangerous trend among American Christians: There seems to be a philosophical and theological framework developing in reaction to a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile to a Christian worldview. In many cultural spaces, the Christian worldview is considered laughable and openly despised. The response of a large segment of evangelicals is to privatize faith and talk publicly only about issues that don’t ruffle cultural feathers.

This is most profoundly seen in the cultural conversations on sexuality. Every evangelical is ready to talk about clean water in Africa, but you will find very few who want to talk about the necessity of Christian sexual ethics as a cultural standard. The reason is crystal clear. Christian sexual ethics are despised in secular society. They are viewed as hateful and repressive. Younger evangelicals see the writing on the wall and want nothing to do with this—as they view it—embarrassing part of their faith. They might very well be traditional in their sexual ethics, but they have talked themselves into believing that no one else needs to know these biblical truths. Sadly, they couldn’t say why Christian sexual ethics are good for the culture anyway.

A new trend among evangelicals is a posture of apology: “we are so sorry that the Bible says this is not a good idea.” Then, they have “listening conversations,” in which they listen to how damaging these cultural ethics have been. Then, they apologize again. Through silence or apology, a large segment of Christians have removed themselves from the public square on the conversations of sex, desire and gender. They want to be relevant. Staying quiet on sex and gender seems to keep us acceptable to the powerful cancel culture.

What happens when the Christian worldview on sexuality loses its defenders in the public square? What happens when a society removes its long-held prohibitions on sexual activity outside of the traditional marital covenant—one man, one woman for life? What happens when marginal sexual impulses of a society aren’t just tolerated but celebrated as a societal good? What happens when morality itself shifts so that gay marriage, gender fluidity and surgical “gender” interventions are held as high examples of society’s wisdom? What happens when what has been considered wrong in Western culture for millennia are now examples of a person’s ultimate expressions of courage and “authenticity”?

This is the world in which we find ourselves. The legal right to marry someone of the same sex is now viewed as a constitutional right. The era of “gender fluidity” is here. Children can now get medicine and surgery to repress and conceal their embodied sexual development and become what their fallen hearts desire, whatever that might be.

Catastrophically, this is not all that this new sexual freedom wants. The goal of the new sexual-freedom culture is not just freedom to do what an individual desires but also to force everyone to celebrate every sexual expression. With fascist-like devotion, they are taking aim at our children.

In Illinois, a new law has been passed that requires the inclusion of LGBT “contributions” to United States history. But this is not about historical contributions; it is about ideological indoctrination. In Joy Pullman’s Federalist article on the new law, Brian Johnson, an LGBTQ advocate, reveals that they are using this law to teach our children to accept the lifestyles of the LGBTQ community as a positive good:

“Imagine a generation of Illinois students having learned the positive contributions of LGBTQ people to U.S., Illinois, world history. … I think it’s only going to have a positive effect on our society’s view of LGBTQ people.”

The angels weep as we sacrifice our children through silence to the new god of tolerance.

Christian silence brings a great human cost. By remaining silent, we are handing our culture a death sentence. This sounds alarmist but if what follows is true, then the alarm must be rung.

Harvard sociologist J.D. Unwin’s seminal work Sex and Culture makes the danger to our country and culture clear. Unwin, a secularist, performed a sociological survey of 80 societies, looking at their sexual ethics and the state of the culture. His work shows a direct link to the flourishing of a society and the sexual ethics they embrace.

There are four stages of civilization that have repeated themselves throughout human history. The first stage is “zoistic.” Zoistic societies “have no … political organization; usually their ‘chiefs’ are social elders or magicians,” and they are “sexually free.” These are primitive societies that cannot provide care to their inhabitants.

The second stage is “manistic.” Manistic cultures embrace “ancestral worship.” The dead are worshipped, placated or served. Manistic societies “compelled an irregular or occasional [sexual abstinence].” Such societies do little to harness this power for the good of its members.

The third society is termed “deistic.” Deistic societies erect temples to respond to the powers of the universe. Successful deistic cultures are “energetic.” Unwin shows how sexual restraint and this social energy are tied together, writing that “members of all the deistic societies demanded the tokens of virginity as proof that a girl was virgo intacta when she was married.” Such a society prescribed “pre-nuptial chastity” to restrain sexual energy. To the degree that the sexual energies were restrained, the society was proportionally energetic:

[T]he accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce.” Sexual restraint, chastity, and marriage cause a society to flourish.

The fourth stage is termed “rationalistic.” Rationalistic cultures develop the arts and sciences and have intellectual advancements, and are also best positioned to care for all segments of society. In short, a rationalistic society is the kind of society where humans can truly flourish.

Western society is at the rationalistic stage, the apex of societal development. Yet according to Unwin, we are in a precarious place. Unwin’s demonstrates that when sexuality is properly constrained, the energies of that restrained sexuality is [sic] used for the good of society. But when a culture begins to expand “sexual freedom. … the society will begin to display less energy” and display “human entropy.” Such entropy is a decline into disorder. If left unchecked, the society will decline and be overtaken by others.

Surely, we have much to defend and protect. Arguably, Western civilization is the greatest society that has existed in human history. Built upon the foundation of the Hebrew tradition and the teachings of Jesus, the great fruit of Western civilization is representative democracy. No other modern government has done more good for human flourishing than the one we are a part of today. It is built upon the blood, sweat and tears of nameless citizens, saints and soldiers through the ages. The common good of our fellow humans around the world is dependent upon its survival and its ideas taking hold.

But it is time to sound the alarm. We are in danger of an extinction-level event, societally speaking. The house is on fire. We have expanded our sexual freedoms. We are losing all sexual restraint and the future is clear: a declining society that very well might be swallowed up by powers that can no longer be held at bay. If your neighbor’s house is on fire and they are asleep, you do not stop yelling to wake them up even if it annoys the whole block. Better to be annoyingly loud than watch your neighbors burn.

How might we be annoyingly loud on sexual ethics in a culture that is on fire? First, we need to remember what it means to be human. In Genesis 1:26-28, we see important ideas about humans that have been foundational to modern Western society. The first important idea that the Bible has given Western society is that every man and woman bears the image of God. Notice that biological sex is foundational to image-bearing and not an expression of personal choice. Our sex is what we are, not what we choose or how we feel. We can’t allow this pillar of civilization to be thrown out because a few post-modern intellectuals have decided biological sex doesn’t matter. It matters. and we must say so. Society’s future is at stake.

Second, the Genesis text teaches that each person is of immeasurable value. This value should be tended to, defended and cultivated. In Western culture, this means constraining sex to marriage because it is in a committed relationship that one man and one woman can honor and serve the image of God in one another. From this, the sexual ethics of Judaism and Christianity find their foundation. Sexual boundaries protect the beauty of God’s image in humanity. According to Unwin, this boundary enables society to flourish. Without it, there will be hell to pay.

The third biblical idea is this: “be fruitful and multiply.” In Christian theology, this is referred to as the creation mandate. If the image of God in humanity is where each person finds his or her identity and worth, then the creation mandate gives the purpose of human sexuality. In Western society, the family is the foundation. The human family is to be a womb of love, creation and protection. In the love of a father and a mother, a child matures in the stability of a life-long commitment. This purpose gives an aim for sex. Pleasure alone provides no restraint. Procreation and restrained pleasure in marriage enables society to flourish.

It is these ideas that have formed the basis of human advancement and human flourishing since the age of the enlightenment in Western society. It is the highest level of hubris to think we are above this pattern of sexual restraint and social energy. We ignore Unwin at our peril.

It is the task of those who believe this is true and care about the future of human good to articulate and speak out for the good of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. It’s time to be annoyingly loud. In every area of life—with family, friends, colleagues, church, and in the public square and politics—we must be apologists for the common good. Make no mistake: those who believe in the new sexual ethic and destructive “gender” theories are not going to stay quiet. They are loud. If left unchallenged, a Christian worldview will be relegated to the trash dump of history. And if Unwin is right—and the research is sadly compelling—this new age of sexual freedom will propel our culture into destruction.

I have heard so many Christians speak ill of Western civilization or claim it doesn’t matter that Christians defend it. This demonstrates that they have no idea what comes next if we remain silent. According to Unwin, a culture that moves into our stage of sexual permissiveness has one generation to restore essential sexual restraints before the culture begins to diminish.

There is still time, but Christians cannot stay quiet. We know what is good and right. The house is on fire, and the occupants are sound asleep. If we love our neighbors, then we must engage. Gentleness and meekness have their place, but this moment demands something more. It demands courage to be annoyingly loud. It demands that we not be silenced by the crowds. It demands a willingness to be persecuted. We should do this because human flourishing is at stake. So, wake up, dear Christians. There is a fire to extinguish.


IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.




Why Worldview Training Is Vital

Do we need to engage in “worldview training” with our children and grandchildren? What difference does it make? Isn’t all of that “worldview” stuff just for philosophers who use big words that my kids and I can’t understand anyway? Isn’t it enough to just follow Jesus and leave worldview to others?

It might be tempting to think that way, but let’s pause for a moment to consider what a “worldview” really is. Our worldview, simply put, is our view of the world. It’s the philosophy or viewpoint we use to interpret everything around us. It’s our road-map to how we live our lives.

That means every single one of us has a worldview. It might be an organized, coherent philosophy, or it may be a hodge-podge of ideas we’ve picked up here and there with no organizing principles. But each one of us, whether we realize or not, has some kind of worldview.

Of course, there are many worldviews in our culture today. There’s humanism, pantheism, socialism, postmodernism, etc. And, of course, there’s Biblical Christianity.

But again, what difference does it make what our worldview is as long as we follow Jesus? And why do we need to go to the work of teaching our kids about worldviews?

To begin, let’s dig a little deeper on what a worldview is.

Defining a Worldview

At the foundation of any worldview are certain “big ideas” that undergird everything else. Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey, in their book How Now Shall We Live?, contend that every worldview must answer three questions:

  1. Creation: Where did we come from, and who are we?
  2. Fall: What has gone wrong with the world?
  3. Redemption: What can we do to fix it?

The Bible answers all of these questions, of course, and those answers form the starting point of a Biblical worldview. And if we choose to live consistently with those answers, every facet of our lives will be impacted.

But what happens if we change the answers to those three foundational questions? Simply put, we’ll end up with a very different worldview.

Marxism, for instance, gives answers that are radically different compared to Christianity. In her book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey explains it this way:

  1. What is Marxism’s counterpart to Creation, the ultimate origin of everything? Self-creating, self-generating matter.
  2. What is Marxism’s version of the Fall, the origin of suffering and oppression? The rise of private property.
  3. How does Marxism propose to set the world right again? Revolution! Overthrow the oppressors and recreate the original paradise of primitive communism.

And once again, from that high-level, big-question perspective, Marxists can figure out what it means to live a life consistent with Marxism.

If the Bible is true—and it is—then its answers to these big questions reveal and describe the world as it really is. It gives us an accurate picture of true reality. All other worldviews, to one extent or another, distort reality and lead their adherents to live contrary to the truth.

Where We Are

Our children are going to believe something. They’re going to have some view of the world around them. And if we don’t give them a Biblical worldview, the world will be glad to give them a substitute to take its place.

The truth is, most of the children in our country today are enrolled in secular government schools that don’t share our worldview. They’re also spending vast amounts of time plugged into media that doesn’t share our worldview.

What ideas are they learning? What worldview are they absorbing through all of this educational and entertainment content?

Young people have been walking away from the church in massive numbers, and the number of “nones”—essentially, those who hold to no religion—has been on the rise. According to Pew Research Center in 2015, 35 percent of Millennials were “nones.”

Moving from the religious to the political sphere, consider these headlines from the past couple of years:

  • CNBC: “Most young Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, new report finds”
  • Axios: “Gen Z prefers ‘socialism’ to ‘capitalism’
  • Fox News: “Americans warming to socialism over capitalism, polls show”
  • Gallup: “Four in 10 Americans Embrace Some Form of Socialism”

Are these young people hardcore socialists? As Gallup notes, “Whether the appeal of socialism to young adults is a standard function of idealism at that age that dissipates as one grows older, or will turn out to be a more permanent part of the political beliefs held by the cohort of millennials who have come of age over the past decade, remains to be seen.”

Of course, once we find out the answer to that question, it may be too late.

As we look around our culture, we see the decline of Christian thought and ideals. If ever there was a time to teach our children a Biblical worldview, the time is now. And I’ll say it again: if we don’t give our children a Biblical worldview, someone is going to take our place and teach our children a different one. But it probably won’t be the one you would have chosen.

Why it Matters

There are at least three negative outcomes our children may succumb to if we fail to teach our them a Biblical worldview:

  • Without a solid understanding of a Biblical worldview, they may fall prey to one of the false worldviews prevalent in our culture—perhaps under the impression that it better explains the “big questions” of life—and walk away from the Christian faith entirely.
  • They could remain faithful to Christ at one level, but be led astray by wrong ideas (such as socialism) because they don’t understand the Bible’s teaching on anything other than personal faith and values (in other words, they think Christianity is only about a personal relationship with Jesus, not truth about all of life).
  • They may absorb elements of many false worldviews without having any Biblical framework to filter them through, leading to a life lived without any real core.

Worldview training, then, is about equipping our children to understand the world as it really is (because only the Bible has the real answers to the biggest questions), refute the wrong ideas our culture tries to hand them, and live confidently according to what they know to be true.

Of course, having a Biblical worldview isn’t a substitute for saving faith in Christ. It’s possible, after all, to know all the right answers yet remain spiritually lost. Yet if our children trust Christ but don’t understand how the Bible offers the best answers across life’s many questions, they won’t be equipped to stand strong in a culture that has lost its way and point others toward the Truth.

Let’s make sure we’re passing on a Biblical worldview to the next generation.

IFI Worldview Conference

To help equip Christians to think and live out our faith in the public square, the Illinois Family Institute is hosting their annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon.

What:  IFI Worldview Conference

When:  Saturday, March 7th, 10 AM to 3:30 PM

Where:  Village Church of Barrington, 1600 E. Main Street, Barrington, IL 60010 (map)

How much:  $20 per person/$50 per family

Click HERE for a flyer for this event.

You don’t want to miss this!




Worldview Work Isn’t Optional

Some are saying that Christians have lost the culture. But what if it was never a war to win, instead it was a calling to embrace? If there is an overarching theme for BreakPoint—starting with Chuck Colson and now with Eric Metaxas and me—it’s culture.  Specifically, how Christians can understand it, engage it, confront it, even restore it—through the clarity of a Christian worldview. As Brett Kunkle and I explain in our book, “A Practical Guide to Culture,” what we mean by culture is not some mysterious thing cloistered in art museums. No, culture is the sum of everything we as human beings create, write, say, do, and think—the marks we leave on our world. In that sense, “engaging the culture” isn’t really optional. It’s human. It’s as much a part of being alive as breathing is. We don’t decide whether we’ll engage the culture. Just how.I say this because lately, a few people have suggested that Christian efforts in the culture have failed. One gentleman recently wrote me saying that worldview-style training like the kind we do in our Colson Fellows Program or at Summit Ministries or other places like that just hasn’t worked. We’re losing the next generation, he said, and mainstream culture is as dark as ever.

But I want to push back against this idea, at least on a couple of fronts. First, it just isn’t true! You can’t convince me that the work of people like Francis Schaeffer, Chuck Colson, David Noebel, or the work of groups like Summit Ministries or the Colson Center, teaching Christians how to approach culture from a Christian worldview hasn’t made a difference. I’ve seen young faces light up when they get this Christianity thing for the first time, realizing it’s true, and that faith relates to culture. I’ve seen too many to believe that it hasn’t made an impact. I was one of those faces in 1994 thanks to Bill Brown and Gary Phillips.

And stats back me up on this. Far from the doom and gloom we often hear in the media, and from Christian sources, the Church isn’t collapsing in America. In fact, evangelicals have one of the highest retention rates of their young people of any Christian group.

And to say that “worldview hasn’t worked” is to ignore the incredible inroads made in the academy in our lifetime. Consider that the entire discipline of philosophy was flipped on its head in the late 20th century by people like Alvin Plantinga. Consider the amazing progress in law, not only now, but the seeding of jurisprudence by the folks at Alliance Defending Freedom. Consider the gains of the pro-life movement. All of these were either directly or indirectly inspired by Christians taught to engage culture armed with Christian worldview thinking.

What this thinking has done, through ministries like Colson Center and programs like BreakPoint, is offer an antidote to the toxic assumption that Christianity is just something you do on Sunday in the pews; that Christianity is personal and private. No way. Christianity is personal, but it’s not private. Every square inch of human existence belongs to Christ.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m under no illusion that things are going great in the culture. No, Christians are facing incredible challenges around the world. And in Western culture, it’s all but lost any sort of privileged position it once had.

But here’s the kicker: at the Colson Center, we don’t teach worldview or champion the idea that Christians should “engage culture” because it “works.” It’s not a strategy, folks. We do it because we’re redeemed human beings, and because redemption is in line with, not opposed to, our created purpose.

Christians shouldn’t make art, write literature, compose music, build businesses or any of these things to win a kind of war against secularism. We do these things because they’re part of what it means to be truly human. And that’s what Jesus saved us to be—fully human worshipers of God with all of our lives.

So yes, the worldview movement and its emphasis on culture has made a difference. I know the beneficiaries by name. But we don’t teach worldview or engage culture for strategic purposes. We do it because Christianity isn’t Christianity without it.

As Chuck Colson would often say, Christians are to “make the invisible kingdom visible.” We do just that by intentionally engaging the culture around us in every sphere of life God has called us to. A great way to take a deeper dive into engaging the culture is to become a Colson Fellow. Click here to find out more about applying for the next class in the Colson Fellows Program.

Resources

A Practical Guide to Culture

  • John Stonestreet, Brett Kunkle | David C. Cook Publishing | 2017

How Now Shall We Live?

  • Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey | Tyndale House Publishing| 2004

The Mark of the Christian

  • Francis Schaeffer | InterVarsity Press Publishing | 2007

Worldview Conference May 5th

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend. This year we are featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!




Censoring Christianity: How We’re Being Silenced, and How to Cope

If you are planning to assault a stronghold, you’d want to weaken its defenders prior to your attack. I discussed a weakening strategy in my prior post [i] about patriarchy and gender roles. I described how reducing the public’s valuation of “what is a family” is vital for establishing a Marxist society.

Another weakening strategy is to silence opposition to your plans. Whether society’s defenders are silenced through force, or are shamed into not speaking up, there will be few objections to your plans to change things, and less opposition to your propaganda.

This article describes how some of these attacks are currently being carried out. Some methods block speeches and communications, but the most dangerous method is to convince us that Christians have nothing important to say in American society. Through accusations of “hate speech,” and claims of various phobias, the goal is to make Christianity seem to be a strange practice, to be ignored and purged. This paper concludes with approaches for parrying these attacks.

You can’t do that: Censorship by preventing rallies

The right to peaceably assemble[ii] to gather, hear speeches, and discuss matters, is fundamental to American politics. Yet conservative politicians and speakers are being denied this right. Their events are being attacked, or are being cancelled because of threats. Some examples are:

Other conservative speakers were disinvited because the costs went up too high for the hosts to bear. For example, how many places can spend $800,000 on security like the University of California did for the September 2017 Milo Yiannopoulos event[vii]

Interestingly, protesters believe that their aggressive, violent protests are their own free speech rights[viii] Juan Prieto, a DACA [ix] recipient attending Berkeley, wrote this college newspaper op-ed [x] about why he believes the protests protect him:

“A peaceful protest was not going to cancel that event, just like numerous letters from faculty, staff, Free Speech Movement veterans and even donors did not cancel the event. Only the destruction of glass and shooting of fireworks did that. The so-called “violence” against private property that the media seems so concerned with stopped white supremacy from organizing itself against my community.” [xi]

Whether through administrators cancelling an event[xii] protesters disrupting it[xiii] or preventing it through mob action[xiv] conservative speakers are being censored through the efforts of vocal, threatening protesters. Although these cited incidents largely involve conservative speakers, you will soon see that the protesters’ animosity is really aimed at the roots of American society.

You can’t share that: Censorship by blocking communication

After the 2016 elections researchers sought explanations [xv] for Trump’s victory. One theory is that Trump’s supporters look more to social media [xvi] than do Hillary’s supporters. This bothers people.

“We should all care about how social media platforms play a part in our democratic process. Because unless it’s addressed it will happen again. The midterms are in 8 months. We owe it to our democracy to get this right, and fast.” – Hillary Clinton [xvii]

In response, there has been much activity to block conservative political conversation on the internet. For example, the California legislature proposes to regulate online postings[xviii] Rather than preventing “fake news” it would result in “government-approved news.”

Social media posts with conservative political speech have been blocked on social media:

“The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community,” it read. “This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way.” [xx]

Posts with Christian content have also been blocked:

Facebook is spinning the idea that it can be “a force for good in democracy,” [xxxi] and that it will soon ban “fake news” from its feeds. Since this change would be done by the same people who currently do the banning, Facebook must have an odd definition of “good.” [xxxii]

You can’t say that: Censoring the message

When Ben Shapiro’s February 2016 event at Cal State University was canceled [xxxiii] the protestors said “…it would promote ‘racist, classist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, ageist, sizeist, neocolonial, neoliberal and oppressive ideologies.’ ” [xxxiv]

Ben wasn’t the real target of these protestors. Their invective is against our culture, which they think is all of those things. But they dare not debate whether the culture really *is* those things, as they’d lose that debate on the facts alone. Instead, the protesters use intimidation, calling our defense “hate speech.”

Hate Speech

The American Bar Association defines hate speech [xxxv] as

“Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” [xxxvi]

The homosexual community regards criticism as hate speech. So does the Islamic community, which has sought to silence all anti-Muslim criticism through international law. [xxxvii] In some places stating Christian doctrine out loud is already considered a hate crime[xxxviii] Could criminalizing Christian speech occur in America? Martin Castro, at the time the chairman of the US Commission on Human Rights, has thinks it should: [xxxix]

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” [xl]

The concept of “human rights” is being rigged against Christians, and not just in the United States. Apparently society can tolerate anything except Christians[xli] So groups of homosexuals, Islamists, Marxists find us offensive, and seek to criminalize Christian belief and behavior.

Alienating our youth from our culture

In the novel 1984 the government kept changing old books and newspapers[xlii] so the past always reflected current political reality. Much the same is happening with our school curricula and textbooks.

  • The Illinois legislature presumes to introduce mandatory emphasis on “LGBT history.” Since a school day isn’t increasing, other things will be omitted to provide time for teaching this. Ralph Rivera, a lobbyist with Illinois Family Institute, said [xliii] “adding LGBT education to public school curriculums would promote ‘a value system counter to the value system that those students have.’ ” [xliv]
  • A new high school history textbook claims that people who voted for Trump are “angry xenophobes.” [xlv] This claim is more suited for a newspaper editorial, but there it is in the book, ready to be taught to students who don’t yet know better.

These books don’t teach the world as it is, but rather about the world as the authors would like it to be. Then our students become disenchanted because the real world isn’t familiar to them – it isn’t like what they learned from their texts. No wonder that so many college students are ready to abandon things like free speech[xlvi]

Denormalizing Christianity

The goal of these attacks is to make Christianity to seem odd, even dangerous. If the highest values in America have become “inclusion” and “diversity,” then Christians, who insist that there are right and wrong behaviors, must be considered enemies to society. Once Christianity is no longer a mainstream philosophy then Christians can be ignored, even persecuted, without qualms. What happens to America from that point only God knows.

What does the Bible say?

These activists aim at trashing our culture, changing its definitions of right and wrong. Is this culture worth defending? To answer that question we need to understand what role Christianity has, and can have, in American culture and its political life.

First off, God is true to Himself. He doesn’t change his mind on what is right and wrong (Numbers 23:19). No matter what people think is the “right side of history,” [xlvii] God is faithful to his own word.

If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. (2 Timothy 2:13).

Christians aren’t to adapt to the society, but hew to obeying God (Romans 12:2).

Second, Christians are called to witness to our society, including instructing our leaders. As I wrote in a prior article on government[xlviii]

  • God cares about having righteous civil government everywhere.
  • His concern isn’t limited to Old Testament Israel, but continues to this day.
  • We are to honor the governing authorities (Romans 13:1), but the authorities must also honor God (Luke 12:42-48; 1 Corinthians 4:2).
  • The authorities are God’s ministers for good (Romans 13:4).
  • How will they know what good God requires of them unless they are told?

God requires a society-wide obedience, and Christians are instructed to inform society concerning God’s commands. Sometimes we’re persecuted for this (e.g, most of the book of Jeremiah), but that goes with the territory.

You should say that: Normalizing Christianity in America

If our enemies have their way, Christians will be effectively barred not only from political speech but also from evangelizing. After all, to them our testimony is hate speech.

Our first defense is to remember that God defines what is right and wrong. He tells us through the Bible how to live. To substitute any other standard, to judge Christianity as being racist or homophobic, is to repeat Adam’s original sin (Genesis 3:5) and say we know better than God.

So don’t be ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16). It empowers you, and reminds you that you’re on solid ground, either when admonishing your elected officials or merely responding to someone who accuses you of “something-phobia” and being intolerant.

Don’t have conversations or arguments on your enemies’ terms, on their own definitions of right and wrong. We’re not arguing about how inclusive to be, but about applying the Bible to society’s ills. A debate can be won simply by being able to define the debating terms and language. Don’t be trapped into using their terms or “facts.”

America has a Christian history and heritage. Those defaming you are the intruders and destroyers. Remind them that they’re trying to fight against God.

You should share that: Overcoming message censorship

The internet is a wonderful thing, but something we’ve wrongly learned from it is that everything is free. In reality it takes money and manpower to keep all of those computer servers running. Usually the website owner doesn’t charge the viewer because they hope to make money through advertising or selling collected data about the people who visit the site.

Hosting something like Facebook takes serious money. And since they’re paying the bills, if they don’t want to host Christian content then we can’t legally force them to do so. Besides, this works both ways. Should an explicitly Christian site, paying its own bills, be forced to take posts from Islamic advocates? So Facebook, et.al, will keep your posts only if they want to, or if you’ve paid them money to keep them posted.

Unless you’ve paid them to take your posts, if the social media site blocks your posts then you’ll have to go elsewhere. But this can be a powerful thing if a lot of people can be also convinced to go elsewhere. For example, Facebook makes money off of page views. If total viewership decreases then so does their advertising income. A long term viewership decrease can lead to policy changes, management change, or even going out of business.

Their vulnerability to viewership loss makes social media sites sensitive to a public relations campaign of shaming. A lot of “Facebook hates you” publicity could lead to decreased income for them. What happens next depends on whether these sites desire making money more than they desire to promote ideology.

So Christians should keep the heat on their social media providers. They might end up prevailing, winning a change in policies. In the meantime, the posts could continue to be banned, etc.

If you’re interested in changing to some other provider you do have choices. Here are some suggestions:

  • You can host your own website. This is priciest, running to maybe $100 per year, but *you* are in control. You can even have no advertising if you so wish!
  • An easier, likely cheaper, way of getting your own website is to do it through WordPress or Blogger hosting companies. Sometimes you can get hosting for free, meaning the host makes money off of advertising.
  • Someone may create another site like Facebook for your posts.

You can rally: Overcoming harassment in the public square

Conservatives and Christians have no problem in creating and attending political events. The problem has been dealing with uncivil dissent, and with colleges having biased views of free speech.

Our opponents also have no problem with attending these events. However, they come ready to interrupt and riot. They don’t believe we have a right to speak[xlix] but go beyond that and ensure that nobody *can* hear.

The police are adequate to handle such disruptions – if they’re allowed to do their job. The disruptions and riots are largest and most destructive where the politicians, or school administrators, actually stop the police from doing their work. Who will hold the politicians and school administrators to account?

When such riots occurred in the Berkeley campus in May 1969 [l] the governor, Ronald Reagan, said in response:

“All of it began the first time some of you who know better and are old enough to know better let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.” [li]

He then took action that definitively shut down that protest – called the National Guard to restore order. Once rioters learn that they don’t have “space to destroy” [lii] they’ll learn to behave and protest in a civil manner.

We must insist that our leaders rein in violent protestors. They must learn that uncivil protest is expensive, both legally and to their careers. Once this is established political events, for conservatives and others, will be less hazardous to attend.

Conclusion

Don’t be intimidated by name-calling or labeling. Keep on speaking about Christ, applying the Bible to society and defending our Christian-based culture. Everything else – posting, meetings, etc. – amount to mere details. Remember, if God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)


Join IFI at our May 5th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our fourth annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned John Stonestreet on Sat., May 5th in Medinah. Mr. Stonestreet serves as President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetic.  (Click HERE for a flyer.)

Mr. Stonestreet has co-authored four books: A Practical Guide to Culture (2017), Restoring All Things (2015), Same-Sex Marriage (2014), and Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview (2007).

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!


Footnotes:

[i] https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/marriage/patriarchy-gender-roles-marxism-educational-campaign-destroy-family/

[ii] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php

[iii] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-trump-protest-scene-20160311-story.html

[iv] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ann-coulter-speech-university-of-california-berkeley/

[v] https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/us/berkeley-ben-shapiro-speech/index.html

[vi] http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/12/anti-islam-events-wisconsin-minnesota-shut-down-antifa-splc/

[vii] https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/24/update-barricades-ring-sproul-plaza-as-berkeley-braces-for-milo-yiannopoulos/

[viii] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/conservatives-campus-speech-wisconsin.html

[ix] https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/the-facts-on-daca/

[x] http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-helped-ensure-safety-students/

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] http://freebeacon.com/issues/hampshire-college-apologizes-abruptly-canceling-conservative-speakers-event/

[xiii] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10164

[xiv] http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article167886312.html

[xv] https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php

[xvi] http://mediaschool.ohio.edu/mdia-professor-explains-how-social-media-impacted-the-2016-presidential-election

[xvii] https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/968321022427652096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[xviii] https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/california-bill-would-shut-down-free-speech/

[xix] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04/10/facebook-accused-of-deeming-black-pro-trump-sisters-unsafe/

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] https://www.dailywire.com/news/25744/bombshell-report-twitter-admits-censoring-ryan-saavedra

[xxii] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/shadow-banning-how-twitter-secretly-censors-conservatives-without-them-even

[xxiii] http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/06/dennis-prager-lawsuit-against-google-youtube-restricting-conservative-videos

[xxiv] https://www.prageru.com/petitions/youtube-continues-restrict-many-prageru-videos-fight-back

[xxv] https://www.christianpost.com/news/facebook-gives-no-reason-blocking-dozens-catholic-christian-pages-192546/

[xxvi] https://blogs.franciscan.edu/faculty/he-was-rejected/

[xxvii] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-freezes-out-christian-vlogger-for-quoting-bible-about-homosexualit

[xxviii] http://www.deonvsearth.com/instagram-blocks-users-from-sharing-christian-faith-born-again-follower-of-jesus-christ/

[xxix] https://www.christianpost.com/news/i-am-a-christian-producers-say-facebook-blocked-message-calling-people-to-identify-as-christians-135960/

[xxx] https://barbwire.com/2017/12/12/facebook-grants-free-speech-to-anti-christian-radicals-but-censors-christians/

[xxxi] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104067130714241

[xxxii] http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/april/christian-posts-blocked-will-christian-speech-be-allowed-in-the-new-facebook-world

[xxxiii] https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26350/

[xxxiv] Ibid.

[xxxv] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

[xxxvi] Ibid.

[xxxvii] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-islam-blasphemy/wests-free-speech-stand-bars-blasphemy-ban-oic-idUSBRE89E18U20121015

[xxxviii] https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/criminalizing-christianity-swedens-hate-speech-law-1277601.html

[xxxix] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/09/commission-says-religious-liberty-should-not-top-civil-rights/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d87d7f8c129a

[xl] Ibid.

[xli] https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-irony-of-the-new-tolerance-it-doesnt-tolerate-christians-119964/

[xlii] https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/book-1984-by-george-orwell-why-does-party-rewrite-90507

[xliii] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-illinois-legislature-lgbtq-20180412-story.html

[xliv] Ibid.

[xlv] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/16/anti-trump-american-history-textbook-blatantly-biased-critics-say.html

[xlvi] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/college-students-free-speech.html

[xlvii] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/obama-right-side-of-history/420462/

[xlviii] https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/faith/how-to-judge-the-president/

[xlix] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9964

[l] http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/24/heres-ronald-reagan-college-kids-went-ape-uc-berkeley/

[li] Ibid.

[lii] http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/




The Wisdom of Washington

With this being the season we celebrate the birthdays of two of our greatest presidents—Lincoln and Washington—I thought it would be fitting to share a quote from our first president that still has tremendous relevance today.

Washington understood the power of education and its influence on young minds. In a letter written in 1795, he shared the following:

It has always been a source of serious reflection and sincere regret with me that the youth of the United States should be sent to foreign countries for the purpose of education. Although there are doubtless many, under these circumstances, who escape the danger of contracting principles unfavorable to republican government, yet we ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems before they are capable of appreciating their own.

The wisdom encapsulated in this paragraph from Washington’s letter holds a lot of relevance for us today, albeit in a different context. While Washington was concerned about foreign ideas of government, today we need to be equally—if not more—concerned about worldviews and value systems contrary to the Word of God (and not just regarding government, but also morality, ethics, and every other area of life).

Just as it was Washington’s desire to see more young people educated here in America rather than abroad, my desire is to see fewer young people from Christian homes educated in secular schools and more given a distinctively Christian education.

Let’s break this quote down and look at some of the wisdom it contains.

SINCERE REGRET

Washington begins by observing how solemn his concern is, noting that this has “always been a source of serious reflection and sincere regret” for him. Indeed, the possibility of our young people adopting contrary worldviews and belief systems is (and ought to be) a matter of “serious reflection.”

SENT AWAY

Washington lamented young Americans being sent away to foreign nations. In our day, however, it’s not foreign countries we need to be concerned about so much as the institutions in our own country that are foreign to our worldview and beliefs. Sending our children away to these institutions brings risk just as surely as sending an eighteenth-century American student to Europe did.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION

Here we come to the crux of the matter. These young Americans in Washington’s day weren’t being sent overseas merely as tourists or sightseers, but as students—“for the purpose of education,” as Washington put it. And that’s a key distinction. When we send our students to schools where we know the worldview is contrary to our own, we have contradictory hopes. We hope our children do learn what we want them to learn, but at the same time, we hope they don’t learn what we don’t want them to learn. Do you see the dilemma? We hope the school is effective, but not too effective. We hope our children learn and believe some of what is taught, but not all of what is taught.

How are our children supposed to know the difference? How are they going to parse it all out and embrace the good while rejecting the bad? It’s a tall order for a young mind.

Never forget: the purpose of a school is education; the foundation of education is ideas; and the content of our ideas determines our direction in life.

ARDENT AND SUSCEPTIBLE MINDS

Here we come to another important point. Washington knew that many of the young people sent overseas for their education were bright, intelligent . . . and susceptible.

Think about some of the synonyms for susceptible: vulnerable; prone; liable; at risk.

Washington knew that young minds are often ardent, but that this ardor can bring vulnerability to wrong ideas. That was his concern in 1795, and it’s no less a concern today. 

TOO STRONGLY AND TOO EARLY

Washington’s fear was that these young Americans would be impressed with contrary ideas “too strongly and too early” for their own good and the good of their country. And his concern wasn’t unfounded. Indeed, the combination of youth and inexperience is a dangerous blend. Mix in some wrong influences, and you’re inviting disaster.

CAPABLE OF APPRECIATION

The final point in Washington’s argument is insightful: he recognized that these young people were not yet capable of completely understanding their own nation—what it offered and what it represented. They would be susceptible to other ideas of government because they had not yet come to a point of full appreciation for the American experiment and the value of individual liberty.

Is it any different today, in the realm of other ideas and beliefs? Are our children so wise and mature that they can recognize the value of the Christian worldview and hold it as the precious thing it is, even in the face of conflicting belief systems?

EMBRACING THE WISDOM OF WASHINGTON

The father of our country was rightly hesitant about sending our young nation’s students abroad to be educated in countries that didn’t share our values of liberty and self-government. He recognized that a young person’s inexperience, ardor, and susceptibility would all combine to make him or her uniquely vulnerable to embracing foreign ideas of government. And in turn, this would be dangerous to the nation he had dedicated his life to building.

In our day, we’re seeing young people walk away from the church in droves. Perhaps we should take a cue from the wisdom of Washington and stop sending our young people, with their “ardent and susceptible minds,” to be educated by those who share neither our faith nor our worldview. Let’s handle the education of our children with the care and concern it deserves.




A Return to Virtue in the Wake of Scandal?

Given the headlines today, lots of secular folks are starting to wonder if they ought to rethink sex. Wow—ya think?

Unless you’ve been under a rock for the last few weeks, you’ve heard about the plethora of #MeToo reports of sexual harassment and abuse perpetrated by politicians, actors, and the news media. The accused run the gamut from liberal to conservative, Christian to skeptic. While the stories are different in detail and gravity, there’s a common thread—people in positions of power, mostly men, taking advantage of less powerful people, mostly females, to satiate their sexual whims.

Many secularists and cheerleaders of the sexual revolution are now shocked that so many people are giving free rein to what one writer calls the “brutality of the male libido.”

In surveying the wreckage, it’s hard to miss the bitter irony here. I’m reminded of C. S. Lewis in “The Abolition of Man” in which he writes, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.  We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

But I’m glad that growing numbers are finally beginning to wake up to the ugly results of their secular worldview. A great example is an opinion piece called “Let’s Rethink Sex” by Christine Emba in The Washington Post. Emba, an opinion writer and editor there, correctly notes that the culture got off track in matters sexual by making the dual assumption that we all deserve a certain amount of sex, and that nothing should get in the way of us satisfying our desires—“even,” she says, “when reciprocity is unclear.”

“It’s not that sex in and of itself is the problem,” Emba writes. “But the idea that pursuing one’s sexual imperatives should take precedence over workplace rules, lines of power or even just appropriate social behavior is what allows predators to justify sexual harassment and assault.”

Amazingly, she says that we ought to return to some of the old virtues—including “prudence, temperance, respect and even love.” Well, imagine that! So far, so good.

But Emba, who has started down the path of wisdom, is hesitant to go too far, saying, “It’s unlikely that we’ll return to a society in which sexual encounters outside of marriage are disallowed or even discouraged—that sex train has already left the fornication station, if it was ever properly there to begin with.”

Okay, but why not return? As Lewis also wrote, “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road.”

So if we’re to rethink sex as Emba and others are beginning to advocate, it makes perfect sense to look to the One who gave us sex in the first place, God Himself, and see what He says about it—and it’s certainly not about satisfying our selfish desires.

Way back in the book of Genesis, we see the two main functions of sex identified by theologians across the spectrum of Christianity—the unitive and the procreative—and they are inseparably linked with marriage.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” That’s the unitive aspect of sex, bringing husband and wife together for mutual benefit.

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain”—that is the procreative aspect, which far too often in our culture has been completely divorced from the sex act—with disastrous results.

So come to BreakPoint.org and I’ll link you to Emba’s article. What a great discussion starter to engage our secular friends and acquaintances—but only under appropriate circumstances, of course.

Let the re-thinking begin.

Resources:

Let’s rethink sex — Christine Emba
The Abolition of Man — C. S. Lewis

This article was originally published at Breakpoint.org.




If Naturalistic Evolution Is True, People Are Not Equal

Written by Amy K. Hall

I find it odd when I refer to an atheist’s worldview and he adamantly denies he has one. This sense that “worldview” is an insult has puzzled me for quite a while; why would atheists think it’s an insult to have a consistent, coherent view of reality? As I’ve talked to them more about this, I think I may have finally figured out why many of them view the term “worldview” so negatively, and it has to do with their identity as atheists.

At the root of atheism (i.e., the rejection of God) is an attempt to throw off outside constraints in order to construct a life of one’s own choosing—that is, to become one’s own god. (An atheist might not put it in terms of becoming “a god,” of course, but I think he would agree with the idea.) What I’m finding is that getting out from under God’s authority isn’t enough for the people I’ve talked to. It turns out that even the idea that one of their beliefs (e.g., “there is no God”) might entail other beliefs they didn’t specifically and individually choose on their own is seen as a sort of outside constraint on their thinking.

But the truth is, we are all constrained by reality, and it’s our job to discover what that reality is and submit to it—not piece by piece, but as a whole, noting how the parts relate to each other, and reasoning from one to the next. If reality is coherent, an acknowledgement of reality in one area (say, the idea that we evolved and were not created by God) will necessarily affect our understanding of reality in another area (say, the idea of universal human rights). Rather than being two completely separate ideas, they’re related to each other in a coherent worldview.

It’s not an accident that people who identify as atheists share many views besides a belief that God does not exist; it happens because a great many views flow out of the idea that there is no God and the material world is all there is. Rather than denying this, atheists would do well to think carefully through their worldview—their coherent view of reality—to make sure all their pieces fit together and, as a whole, match the reality they see around them.

If they do this, I think they will find that some of their cherished ideas just won’t fit into the “no God” puzzle. I was reminded of this when I saw this quote from Yuval Harari in Impossible People, wherein he comments on the idea in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”:

According to the science of biology, people were not “created.” They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be “equal.” The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a directly created soul, and that all people are equal before God. However if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation, souls, what does it mean that all people are created “equal”? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. “Created equal” should therefore be translated “evolved differently.” [Read more of the quote in context here.]

Equality and universal human rights come from Christianity, not atheism. There is nothing in atheism that could undergird those ideas (as atheists on this blog have themselves said). Worldviews matter, they lead to myriad consequences, and everyone has one. Make sure you think through yours—and its implications—carefully.


This article was originally posted at the Stand to Reason blog.




Discovering Hidden Biases

At the University of Illinois “Pride Festival” you can learn:

“…how to use verses from the Bible to debunk the “homosexuality is a sin” message — and how to make downstate Illinois more LGBTQ supportive. [i]

To make you like them they want to change you and your worldview. Why is changing your worldview so important to them, and to you?

Your very own worldview

Worldview is just a fancy word describing what you’ve learned, the experiences you’ve had, and your future expectations. For example:

  • You know some parts of the Bible better than many other people, but other parts of it still puzzle you.
  • You might be afraid of heights but fearless about spiders.
  • You’re could be unafraid of hardships but need great courage to greet strangers.

You’ve experienced events and learned things in ways that nobody else has. All of what you’ve done, have learned and have come to believe contributes to your own personal worldview.

Tiny changes all of the time

When you experience something different that adds to your worldview, giving you an opinion about something new. When you do something repeatedly that also changes your worldview, reinforcing your opinion about that task. So merely living your life will daily adjust your worldview. Some adjustments come from singular or major events, like being in a car accident or having a child married off. But most of the time you’re having multiple, tiny adjustments to your worldview.

Some worldview changes are innocuous, such as reinforcing your opinion about public transit. Other changes might affect your character or your attitudes about certain people. For example, if you work with profane or coarse people you could, over time, end up changing your speech and sense of humor to “fit in”, seeking their acceptance.

Almost invisible biases

We’re amply warned in the Bible to be continually on guard, for each of us to work out our personal sanctification and be conformed to Christ’s character [ii]. We are quite wary of major snares, like stealing from work or acting coarse to “fit in.” But it can be hard to see un-Christian behaviors and attitudes when they’re baked into the culture.

Marshal McLuhan said that fish can’t know about water because they’re always in it [iii]. They’ve nothing to compare it with. A similar statement can be made for modern culture, that it is hard to see built-in biases and so-called “truths.” For example, examine these popular sentiments:

  • The “coexist” bumper sticker, insisting that we’re all searching for the same God.
  • The middle class is under economic pressure.
  • The rich should pay their fair share of taxes.
  • Scientists are altruistic, interested only discovering the truth.

These seem reasonable and beyond argument. But if you look deep you can see the bias.

Religions just don’t coexist. Certainly not Christianity. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is like yeast worked into dough, getting into every corner of society [iv]. We know that all the earth will become subject to Him [v]. A society can’t have Christ-honoring laws and also laws of some other religion. Asking for coexistence is to claim that an even Higher Law exists. That was the sin of Adam [vi].

What is this “middle class?” The middle class is a way of grouping that part of the American populace considered to earn a moderate amount of money. However, the concept of grouping people by “class” comes from Marxism.

In Marxist thought a society supposedly thinks only in terms of class, dividing itself by economics (lower, upper, middle), race or sex. These classes are always at war with each other, each championing itself at the expense of the others. An individual who thinks outside of his or her assigned role is to be reviled. For example, consider the disrespect accorded to Justice Clarence Thomas for his conservative rulings.

Yet classifying people, or class warfare, isn’t what Christ taught us. We know that there is no difference in race or occupation or anything in Christ [vii]. We’re not to favor the rich or the poor when judging [viii]. Perhaps it is time to stop using “class” to describe people.

What is a “fair share” of taxes? Our governments created tax codes that define what to pay. Current law says that wealthy people should pay a higher income tax rate than do poorer people. What’s abused here is “fair”. That means no matter what tax was paid, it’s only fair that the person in question should have paid even more. The Bible’s word for this thought is envy. How dare he be rich and only pay what is required!

Scientists are truth seekers. People who become scientists have hopes, dreams, moral strengths and failings. In short, they are human and not angels. A truthful scientist executes research and reports the results, even when it disproves his or her own theory. A less honest one might skew tests, or invent data to report something more profitable.

Does untruthful research happen? All of the time. Notable examples are:

  • Soviet biology research under Dr. Lysenko: This scientist promoted faulty or fraudulent research regarding agriculture and plant breeding. He promised such improved crop yields that Stalin promoted him and his ideas above all other biological scientists. Some 3000 biologists that opposed his views were fired, imprisoned or killed by the Soviets. His influence over Russian biological research lasted over twenty years, until after Stalin died.[ix].
  • Parkinson’s disease researcher faked results: In an attempt to continue funding for his Parkinson’s disease research Dr. Murdoch made up things. He apparently never conducted any clinical trials and forged consent forms of its supposed participants. [x]
  • Global warming: Some weather scientists created the concept that people are permanently changing our planet’s weather. But the data didn’t agree with this theory. No problem: they just changed historic weather records, adjusted new incoming data, and suddenly there’s a crisis! [xi]

    Science works when many researchers look at the same data and, when their analyses agree, they confirm the theory. A researcher must gather the data and then change the theory so it fits the data [xii]. That isn’t happening here. Instead these scientists and their friends are trying to stifle all criticism of their theory

    [xiii].

We can expect that some scientists – with human nature this is inevitable – will produce fraudulent research. Scientists aren’t truthful just because they are scientists. They’ll be truthful only as much as they honor this clearly Christian virtue over a love of fame or money.

How to see invisible biases?

There is no magic formula for finding invisible biases. You’ll see them if you continue accepting God’s sanctifying work in you [xiv]. Be curious in the words you use, or are asked to accept. Measure them against the Bible. You’ll not only be made more like Christ but wiser, able to discern good from evil [xv].

Equip and inform your Christian worldview

That is why IFI is hosting its third annual Worldview Conference with Dr. Frank Turek on February 18th next year.  We want to help equip you and your family with a solid biblical worldview. How do we think about the issues of the day? Do we think clearly and biblically about the issues, or is there something clouding or contaminating our understanding?  Are we buying into lies and distortions of the culture, or are we able to discern fact from fiction, truth from deception?

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

What:  IFI Worldview Conference with Dr. Frank Turek

When:  Saturday, February 18th, 10 AM to 3:30 PM

Where:  Village Church of Barrington, 1600 E. Main St., Barrington, IL 60010 (map)

How much:  $20 per person/$50 per family

Click HERE for a flyer for this event.

Learn more about worldviews

You might like to study the concept of Bible-based worldviews and what it implies. Here are some sites to start with these links:

http://www.foundationsforliving.org/articles/foundation/worldview1.html

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian-worldview/whats-a-christian-worldview/whats-a-worldview-anyway


Footnotes:

[i] http://dailyillini.com/features/2016/09/09/c-u-pride-festival-offers-education-entertainment/

[ii] 2 Corinthians 10:5

[iii] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/187497-one-thing-about-which-fish-know-exactly-nothing-is-water

[iv] Matthew 13:33

[v] Matthew 22:44

[vi] Genesis 3:5

[vii] Galatians 3:28

[viii] Leviticus 19:15

[ix] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-the-soviet-union-chose-the-wrong-side-on-genetics-and-evolution-23179035/?no-ist

[x] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/04/01/when-scientists-lie-about-their-research-should-they-go-to-jail/

[xi] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/16/editorial-climate-scientists-manipulate-data-to-su/

[xii] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf160383.html

[xiii] http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html

[xiv] Philippians 2:12

[xv] Hebrews 5:14




Dr. Wayne Grudem on the U.S. Supreme Court and the 2016 Election

Dr. Wayne Grudem says “moral character” still matters as the nation chooses a new President. During an Illinois Family Institute sponsored meeting with faith leaders the renowned theologian and author challenged pastors to let their congregation know that the future of America is at stake and how the nation votes will not only determine who our next President will be, but also the direction of the Supreme Court. New additions to the High Court will likely decide life and religious liberty cases.

With so much on the line do we want a president who lacks moral character?


Support the work of IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

illinoise-family_donate
(Gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)