I read the complaints and whining of Christians about their experiences with other Christians and  churches and, if it weren’t for the fact that I fall into the same discouragement about churches and Christians from time-to-time, I would scream out, “What a bunch of namby-pamby babies you are!”

But, before I try to make some biblical arguments about the right response to Christians’ failures,  I would like to remind us all of something.

Some centuries ago the God-Man Jesus Christ, our Creator, came here as one of us.  And though He was sinlessly perfect, holy, loving and kind, He stood in our place at the Bar of God’s judgment , and all of the awful, holy wrath of an infinitely angry God against all the wickedness of all mankind for all time was poured out upon Him!  This perfectly lovely, innocent One “who knew no sin” staggered under the load of our sin and His Father’s wrath.  He “for the joy that was set before Him” “became sin” for us, bore that justice for you and for me, WITHOUT A WORD OF COMPLAINT. 

The physical suffering of Christ on the cross was absolutely NOTHING compared to the spiritual suffering He bore as His Father turned His back upon Him!  And, it is imperative that we understand that the Father, being just, did not nor could pull His punches, or lighten the judgment.   Christ took it all!

And we, how do we respond when someone at church doesn’t take us seriously, or “offends” us, or “judges” us, or messes up our schedules with all those useless church activities, or drops the ball completely and just plain sins one time too often?  Yeah, we’re so important, busy, perfect, and correct that we just walk out the door!  We have no time for such fools.

Maybe someone needs to step up and tell things as they are: IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.  That’s right, you heard me!  The universe doesn’t revolve around you!  IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS CHRIST!  And, when we finally take our eyes off of ourselves and fall at the feet of this “altogether lovely” One, and begin to love, honor and worship Him as we ought, we will find ourselves being transformed, renewed, and strengthened in order to bear with, forgive and encourage others who are, after-all, just like us.

For those of you who have “quit church” because Christians failed you I’d like to remind you that the Lord told a parable just for people like you.  He spoke of a wealthy man who called in his servant who owed him mega bucks, far more than he could pay.  Since the servant could not pay it, the master ordered him sold as a slave to make payment.  The servant fell on his knees begging for mercy, and the master, out of compassion forgave him the entire debt.  I’m sure you know the rest of the story, don’t you?  Yeah, the servant went out and demanded payment of the petty debt another servant owed him, and the rest is tragic.  The fact is that any offense any Christian has committed against us is NOTHING compared with our offenses against God.  And, because He has freely and lovingly forgiven us, He demands we forgive each other.  End of story.

The question becomes, how do we learn to bear with and forgive people who constantly fail us time-after-time!  Maybe the same way people bear with and forgive us as we fail time-after-time?  That’s right.  One mark of maturity is to realize how fallen our flesh really is, and how often we drop the ball.  That people don’t constantly point out our failures is no proof that we are so good, only that others choose to be patient with us.  The fact is we all fail repeatedly throughout our lives and will continue to do so until we stand perfect before Christ.  Even if we actually sin less often than others, that is no basis for seeing ourselves as superior to them.  And, make no mistake about it, when you bail out of church you are declaring yourself superior to those who remain.  You don’t want to be “dragged down” by their failures.

This does not mean that we should never change churches.  But changing churches is our only option.  “No church” is not an option.  The New Testament contains no examples of Christians absenting themselves from active participation in a church.  There are no “solo” Christians.  And, a look at churches like the one at Corinth will silence any argument to the contrary.  That church was filled with every imaginable flaw from immorality, to judgmentalism, to cliques, to outright criminality.  But, Paul made no room for leaving the church.  In fact, He went so far as to say that with regard to the believers “defrauding” one another, that if they could not settle it within the church, rather than going to unsaved civic judges they should rather “be defrauded!”  Yes, you read right.  Paul taught that even if a brother were to actually rob them, if they could not fix it within the church, they were to neither leave the church nor go to the courts.  They were to simply bear with the offense.  Unbelievable in a day when if someone just sneezes strangely we hit the exit.

The bear-bones reality of the churches is that one will find in them everything from great, godly saints to new-born believers, to unsaved and uninterested and everything in-between.  In fact, the Epistles warn that the churches will, not might, but will become the hosts of not merely immature believers, but false prophets, teachers, even ravening wolves.  It has always been that way and will continue thus until Christ chooses to set everything right.  And, His admonition is to stay in there, not for our own pleasure or perceived benefit, but, for His sake.  He, knowing all this, made no provision for us departing the churches.  It is rather a mark of the “last days,” that so many choose to take the easy way out and merely drift through life, unwilling to expend the effort to deal biblically with the reality of  their own and other Christians’ fallen “old natures.”

Which is easier to grow, a weed plot or a garden?  It’s an easy answer.  A weed plot requires no labor, but if you would grow beautiful flowers or vegetables, you must expend considerable effort.  And, multitudes of weeds, some quite noxious and durable, create a constant battle.  On a spiritual level, the church is intended to be a garden, but we have not only random weeds that sprout up uninvited, we have powerful and malicious enemies, spiritual and otherwise, who actively and energetically seek to interfere and destroy our efforts.  A good gardener does not lose heart at the effort necessary to be successful in his efforts, but rather seeks out the best tools to fight off the weeds and protect his garden.  So must we for the sake of the “gardens” of the churches.  And, regardless of the imperfections of the gardens, they remain a much safer place for a tomato plant then the weed-bed outside the garden’s walls.

It is impossible in a brief paper to answer every objection one might raise or provide a solution to every dilemma.  But, suffice it to say that there are times when it is correct to find another church.  Studying the New Testament churches, especially the Seven Churches of Revelation 2 and 3 will provide some insight.  If one cannot find a satisfactory church, he might reevaluate his own standards for a church to be sure they are thoroughly biblical in the first place.  But, if he is convinced that there is truly no church that he may join with a clear conscience, then his options are two-fold:  He should either find others who can help him start a biblical church, or he should move to where there is a biblical church.  There are no other biblically acceptable alternatives.  To simply not participate in a church violates God’s will for New Testament saints.  And, don’t respond that if I knew your situation, I would think differently.  God knows your situation and He’s the one who has written the Book!

There are many things to learn in the “crucibles” of life, and it sad that churches at times become crucibles when they ought to be gardens.  However, when you find yourself in such a situation it is imperative to recall that even such a situation abides under the loving eyes of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and He will provide guidance, wisdom, strength and courage to make the correct choices.  However, He will NEVER approve your quitting, ever.  But, He will provide that the plans of the enemy to destroy you, the church and others work out, not for your hurt, but for your eternal good if you have a heart to hear His voice and do His will.  Romans 8:28 remains in force, and those who wrong Christ’s people will face Him one day.  Every wrong, large or small, will be made right!  That is really all we need to know.

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem

We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington.

Click HERE to register today!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.

The American church has a problem. It’s one part fear, one part confusion and one part apathy. Pastors, priests and rabbis have long swallowed the false notion that all things religious and all things political are somehow mutually exclusive – that never the twain shall meet.

Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem. “I’m being accused of being controversial and political,” he said. “I’m not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn’t my fault that they’ve made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn’t stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them. …”

“What then is wrong?” he continued. “I say the problem, first of all, is in the pulpits of America. We preachers must take the blame. For too long we have fearfully stood back and failed to address the issues that are corrupting the republic. I repeat Proverbs 14:34: ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation.’ Not military might, though that’s important. Not financial resources, though that has been the enjoyment of this nation above all nations in the last 200 years. But spiritual power is the backbone, the strength, of a nation.”

Indeed, it is not just within the church’s purview, but it is the church’s duty to insert itself into state matters relating to morality, public policy and culture at large.

Contrary to popular opinion, the words “separation of church and state” are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Yet many are misled into believing they are.

So why the confusion?

It’s been intentionally fomented. It’s the byproduct of a decades-long religious cleansing campaign. The First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause,” a mere 10 words, is the primary tool secular separatists misuse and abuse to “fundamentally transform” America to reflect their own anti-Christian self-image.

Yet these words remain abundantly clear in both scope and meaning. The Establishment Clause states merely: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. …”

That’s it.

And the founders meant exactly what they said: “Congress,” as in the United States Congress, “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

In a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, often touted by the left as the great church-state separationist, spelled out exactly what this meant then, and what it means today. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was simply intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively “establishing,” through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

As Jefferson put it: “[T]he clause of the Constitution” covering “freedom of religion” was intended to necessarily preclude “an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States.”

The individual states, however, faced no such restriction. In fact, until as late as 1877, and after religious free exercise became absolute with passage of the 14th Amendment, most states did have an official state form of Christianity. Massachusetts, for example, sanctioned the Congregational Church until 1833.

Even so, today’s anti-Christian ruling class insists on revising history. The ACLU’s own promotional materials, for example, overtly advocate unconstitutional religious discrimination: “The message of the Establishment Clause [to the U.S. Constitution] is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” they claim.

This is abject nonsense. It’s unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination – a twisted misrepresentation of the First Amendment. Secular-“progressivism” depends upon deception as much as it relies upon revisionism. Yes, “separation” applies, but only insofar as it requires the state to remain separate from the church. That is to say, that government may not interfere with the free exercise of either speech or religion.

For decades, hard-left anti-theist groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way (PFAW) and Barry Lynn’s Americans United (AU) have employed a cynical disinformation scheme intended to intimidate clergy into silence on issues of morality, culture and Christian civic involvement – issues that, as Falwell noted, are not political so much as they have been politicized; issues that are inherently “religious.”

AU, for instance, annually sends tens-of-thousands of misleading letters to churches across the nation warning pastors, priests and rabbis that, “If the IRS determines that your house of worship has engaged in unlawful intervention, it can revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status.”

That’s a lie.

In reality, there is no legal mechanism whatsoever for the Internal Revenue Service to take away a church’s tax exemption. Churches are inherently tax-exempt, or, better still, “tax immune,” simply by virtue of being a church. Churches do not need permission from the IRS, nor can the IRS revoke a church’s tax immunity.

Since 1934, when the lobbying restriction was added to the Internal Revenue Code, not a single church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. Since 1954, when the political endorsement/opposition prohibition was added, only one church has ever lost its IRS letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status. The case involved the Church at Pierce Creek in New York, which placed full-page ads in USA Today and the Washington Times opposing then-Gov. Bill Clinton for president. The ads were sponsored by the church, and donations were solicited. The IRS revoked the church’s letter ruling, but not its tax-exempt status. The church sued, and the court noted that churches are tax-exempt without an IRS letter ruling. It ruled that “because of the unique treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial.” Not even this church lost its tax-exempt status, and not one donor was affected by this incident.

As Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel has observed, “Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues, such as natural marriage and abortion, can urge the congregation to register and vote, can overview the positions of the candidates, and may personally endorse candidates. Churches may distribute nonpartisan voter guides, register voters, provide transportation to the polls, hold candidate forums, and introduce visiting candidates.”

Since 2008, the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom has spearheaded a First Amendment exercise called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” Since then, thousands of pastors across America have boldly exercised their guaranteed constitutional rights by addressing “political” issues from the pulpit. This has included directly endorsing candidates. These pastors have dared the IRS to come after them, and, not surprisingly, the IRS has balked.

Pastors, this election season follow the lead of Christ. Speak moral/political truths, in love, fearlessly. Remain undaunted by the threat of government intervention or punitive action by the state. And encourage your congregation to vote for candidates who sincerely reflect, in both word and deed, a biblical worldview and biblical principles.

Be “salt and light.”

Because Christ didn’t give us an option to do otherwise.

There is no doubt about it, many of us are hoping that 2016 will bring real change. Remembering back to the mantras of 2008, there were those who were anticipating “hope and change.” However, what we have seen over the course of the past eight years is not only more of the same, but a continual slide into social, economic, international, and moral chaos. And as a result, we continue to petition the Throne of Heaven, seeking real and fundamental change.

However, as we turn to the only One who can indeed bring real change, it’s fitting to consider how we should approach His Throne. The Apostle Paul encourages us to pray, specifically for our political situation, in his first letter to Timothy, and chapter 2 where he says, “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.”

Reflecting on this verse we see the reality that prayer indeed does change things. Prayer indeed does bring hope. Paul encouraged the people of his day to pray for civil authorities that were in many ways far worse than the man who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. At least in our day, we don’t see Christians being used as sport of the Coliseum or being used to light the path to the Capital Building.

If they were encouraged to pray in their day, we should understand that that mandate is for us as well. And there is hope for us as we pray, and that is that we might lead quiet and peaceable lives. In other words, we pray that the government would simply leave us alone. At least, that’s as far as most people’s prayers actually go.

But perhaps that’s why we are where we are. Perhaps that’s why we have the situation in our nation today, where we see unrest in our cities, we see our economy in shambles, we see our foreign policy in disarray. Perhaps were praying for the wrong thing. You see the issue is this, this Scripture in 1st Timothy calls us to not only pray for the government so that we might lead quiet lives, but that we might live such lives in all godliness and reverence.

I think that’s where the real problem is today. Godliness is out of vogue. Reverence is passé. Instead of seeing the law of God as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, we have turned into a nation where everyone does what is right in his own eyes. What we have before us today is a new and very secular commandment: to sin is not a sin, but to call a sin a sin is a sin.

And, sadly, our situation is not new. Throughout the Bible, we see times where God’s people faced political unrest and international intrigue. But the majority of those times were the result of the people of God turning away from God, and then God’s judgment came.

Perhaps that is where we are today. We have the current president that we have because of our own ignorance of what is right. We have the unborn being slaughtered, we have the decadent paraded as wholesome, we have raised up a generation who believe that their true source comes in the form of a check postmarked from Washington DC or Springfield Illinois. We no longer seek godliness, no longer desire to live lives that reflect reverence.

I believe it crucial that we pray for the upcoming elections. We all should be setting aside a significant amount of time to make sure that God hears our cries. But friends, if we are only crying out so that we might lead a life that is quiet and peaceable, in other words where we have lower taxes and the vagabonds off the streets, I fear we will continue to get what we deserve.

Let us remember the words of 2 Chronicles 7:14, “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

It is time to turn from wickedness, to repent, and to seek the face of Almighty God.

Renowned Evangelical flagship Wheaton College has been embroiled in a controversy generated by the Facebook statement from associate professor of political science Larycia Hawkins that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She made this statement when she announced that during the entire Advent season, she would wear a hijab, the traditional head-covering required of Muslim women when in public. Hawkins viewed this as an act of “embodied politics, embodied solidarity” as opposed to what she deems “theoretical solidarity.” Wandering around America wearing a hijab was Hawkins’ rather peculiar application of James 2:26: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.”

Hawkins also strangely believes that her claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God is not a theological statement. Perhaps she didn’t intend it to be a theological statement, but it quite definitively is.

In a justifiable attempt to discern how closely Hawkins hews to the Statement of Faith that all Wheaton faculty sign, she was asked to clarify her theological beliefs and subsequently to clarify her murky “nuanced” clarification (Her clarifying theological statement has a curious explanation of the Eucharist), at which point Hawkins took umbrage, arguing that her annual signature on the Statement of Faith is sufficient. She has been suspended, and Wheaton is under attack from within and without the Wheaton College community.

Poisonous allegations have emerged from those who detest the biblical orthodoxy of Wheaton and the cultural beliefs that emerge from it that Wheaton administrators and/or trustees are treating Hawkins unfairly because of hidden or not-so-hidden racism. Less poisonous but problematic nonetheless are complaints that the culture of Wheaton restricts academic freedom and limits diversity.

Hawkins’ suspension and the debate about whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God reveal a troubling fissure created by a handful of Wheaton faculty members who tilt leftward on both theological and so-called “social issues.” This divide needs to be more comprehensively and clearly exposed to all Wheaton College stakeholders, including alumni donors.

With dancing-on-pinheads complexity, Wheaton urban studies associate professor Noah Toly, Princeton systematics professor Bruce Lindley McCormick, and Yale theologian Miroslav Volf have all assured the nation that there are strong (though abstruse) arguments to defend Hawkins’ theological view of the sameness of the god of Islam and the God of the Bible. But then there are others, like president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Dr. Al Mohler, Moody Bible Church pastor Dr. Erwin Lutzer, theologian Peter Leithart, and Christian apologist for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries Nabeel Qureshi, all of whom, though acknowledging the complexity of the theological issue, argue that the god of Islam and the God of the Bible are not the same.

What is most interesting about the debate is that those Wheaton professors most ardently supportive of Hawkins’ liberal-ish theological views are also those professors most ardently liberal on social issues. Coincidence?

Two of the most prominent defenders of Hawkins are also likely sitting port-side on the flagship Wheaton: Michael Mangis and Brian Howell.

Professor Michael Mangis

Dr. Michael Mangis is a psychology professor who on Monday, the first day of the new semester, shivered around campus and to his classes wearing his academic regalia (i.e., cap, gown, hood) to signify solidarity with Hawkins and to show his commitment to “learning,” which he asserts Wheaton has lost as evidenced by their effort to ensure that Wheaton faculty affirm theological orthodoxy:

The academic robe has long been a symbol of learning. And learning requires humility and a willingness to be changed….[The] college as an institution is refusing to learn. I’m going to wear this robe as a reminder and a call to us to return to learning.

I wonder if Mangis is open to learning and willing to change.

Christian parents of Wheaton students, Wheaton donors, trustees, and administrators should be deeply troubled by the comment that Mangis left under Hawkins’ initial Facebook post: “If you get any grief at work give me a heads-up because I’ll be leading my spring psychology of religion class in Muslim prayers.” Even liberal supporter Mangis could see the problematic nature of Hawkins’ theological claim even before the imbroglio began.

A young pastor and friend who attended Wheaton for both undergraduate and graduate school asked the question that parents, trustees, and administrators should be asking: “In what universe should Christian instruction include Muslim prayers?”

In an interview about the controversy, Mangis shared that he’s volunteered to teach about “white privilege” at a student-organized “teach-in.” No need for Wheaton students to travel to the annual White Privilege Conference when they’ve got ever-learning, ever-changing psychology professor Mangis right there at Wheaton.

In a biased Chicago Tribune “news” story yesterday, Mangis whined about lack of diversity at Wheaton:

We have been entrenched in a white male evangelical groupthink for so long….We need to get out of that. It has come by bringing fresh voices and new perspectives. But when you have those fresh voices, you can’t say you don’t sound enough like a white male evangelical. [Hawkins] was not sounding enough like the old school way of doing things.

Yeah, you wouldn’t want any old-school, white, male perspectives on the nature of God to interfere with political science professor Hawkins’ fresh perspective on it.

But wait. I’m confused. Those arguing that, yes, indeedy, Christians and Muslims worship the same God explained that such a perspective is old, very, very old, and espoused by a boatload of men, many of whom had the distinct misfortune of being white.

It is true that the ideological diversity of faculty members is limited by Wheaton’s intellectual and moral commitments, just as the ideological diversity of faculty members at colleges that formally espouse liberal intellectual and moral commitments regarding homosexuality and gender dysphoria is limited. What liberals really desire is the eradication of institutional places for orthodox theological views and conservative moral views to be taught. If one exists, they seek to regulate it out of existence or infiltrate it and change it from within.

Professor Brian Howell

Mangis wasn’t alone on Monday. With his solidarity snazzily embodied, anthropology professor Dr. Brian Howell also sashayed about campus in his academic regalia. Howell first came to my attention following the resignation last July of Julie Rodgers, Wheaton College’s most recent and notable bad hire. (Interesting side note, Rodgers was standing behind Hawkins at her recent press conference.)

Rodgers is well-known for her self-identification as a “celibate gay Christian.” She was hired in the Fall of 2014 as a ministry associate for spiritual care in the Chaplain’s Office to counsel students experiencing same-sex attraction. When she was hired many people who love Wheaton College were deeply troubled because of Rodger’s perspective on and seeming flippancy about homoerotic attractions as revealed in statements like this:

When I feel all Lesbiany, I experience it as a desire to build a home with a woman that will create an energizing love that spills over into the kind of hospitality that actually provides guests with clean sheets and something other than protein bars…. This causes me to see the world through a different lens than my straight peers, to exist in the world in a slightly different way. As God has redeemed and transformed me, he’s tapped into those gay parts of me that now overflow into compassion for marginalized people and empathy for social outcasts

A year later, in July, 2015, Rodgers wrote that she had evolved and no longer opposes homoerotic relationships:  “I’ve quietly supported same-sex relationships for a while now. When friends have chosen to lay their lives down for their partners, I’ve celebrated their commitment to one another.” Rodgers then rightly resigned.

After her resignation, president of the Manhattan Declaration and Wheaton College alumnus Eric Teetsel wrote on his Facebook page that Wheaton College owed Wheaton students, their parents, and alumni an apology for hiring her. Howell arrogantly and hostilely replied both to Teetsel and to other commenters:

Eric, you are being a jerk here. Wheaton does not need to “apologize” for Julie. She did not “affirm” or counsel students into same-sex relationships. She SAYS, if you will READ it, that she assumes some, in their desire to follow Jesus, will find themselves in same-sex relationships. I knew this would happen. People who make a living stoking the fires of the culture war would throw this down. “See, told you so! Gay people! It’s how they are!” I just wish you could be better than that.…

Sometimes bad behavior needs to be called out, and this sort of culture warring is un-Christian and reprehensible. I’m not impugning [Eric’s] salvation. Yes, he is a Christian. I just don’t think he’s acting like it right now….[Eric’s] post is just a smug little victory dance and is, well, jerky.

…

For the record, Eric was a student of mine (for one class) when he was at Wheaton, so, yes, I may take a condescending tone, but I will always see him as a younger brother and former student. That’s just how it goes.

As a parent of two Wheaton grads (who married Wheaton grads), I wholeheartedly agree that the Wheaton administration owed students and their parents an apology for such a terrible hire. The problematic nature of Rodgers’ ideas about homosexuality was clear before Wheaton hired her.

Leftist arrogance is on display when Howell claims that “this sort of culture warring is un-Christian,” while apparently believing his sort of culture-warring is Christian. Howell’s implicit accusation that Teetsel is stoking the fires of the culture war is absurd. It’s pyro-“progressives” who started the fires and unashamedly fuel them. Every politically engaged conservative I know sincerely desires for the cultural conflagration to be extinguished posthaste but not at the cost of sacrificing marriage, truth, and the eternal lives of those trapped within false religions or destructive ideologies.

“Progressives,” on the other hand, seem to want the fires to die down only after they’ve engulfed the entire culture. They would like theologically orthodox men and women to pipe down while children, teens, and adults become entangled in deception and confusion. Far too many theologically orthodox Christians have been silent in response to the pernicious ideas torching the earth.

I spent some time on Howell’s Facebook page to see if I could figure out which “sort of culture-warring” is  Christian:

• He’s glad about InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s controversial invitation to a representative from the far Left, homosexuality-affirming Black Lives Matter organization to speak at a recent conference.
• He wants America to stop talking about building a fence on the border with Mexico.
• He wants Nevada to go solar.
• He wants more persons of color in academia (I haven’t seen any posts yet about the dearth of conservatives—both colorless and colorful—in secular academia).
• He supports Bernie Sanders’ position on student debt.
• He opposes palm oil plantations that harm rainforests.
• He supports more government regulation of guns.

Since Howell posts a lot about injustice, I was eager to read his posts about the most egregious ongoing injustice in America—the genocide of the unborn—which became a huge national debate following the release of undercover videos that exposed the reality of abortionists’ view of humans in utero. I managed to find one post by Howell on this unspeakable American horror. He posted a piece from liberal Jesuit magazine America that he described as “a very careful and balanced perspective.” The article is an extended criticism of the Center for Medical Progress for what the writer believes is unfair, selective editing. The following day after intense criticism, the writer added a clarification that he opposes abortion. Howell posted his recommendation of the article prior to the clarification.

So, other than opposing unfair, selective editing of the undercover videos, Howell is silent on the legalized slaughter of the unborn.

Perhaps I overlooked them, but I also couldn’t find any posts about the gross injustice represented by the Obergefell travesty that imposed same-sex faux-marriage on the entire country—a decision with grave implications for children’s rights and the First Amendment.

I did notice a couple of Howell’s Facebook “likes” that are difficult to reconcile with theological orthodoxy. He “likes” Wild Gender, “an online art space born out of gratitude for the gift of full expression. Who would we be without those who walked so wildly before? As such, WG strives to provide a space for  queer and gender-variant art makers and purveyors to share work and praxis, aiming to amplify those with intersectional identities.”

He also “likes” Rainbow Moms which invites “Proud Rainbow Moms [and] parents of LGBTQ kids! We are proud of our kids, and we are here to support each other in our new community! What is NOT welcome: Intolerance, Religious rhetoric, Anti LGBT speech or links.”

While Wheaton is under scrutiny for the doctrinal beliefs of a faculty member and cultural application of those beliefs, perhaps it would be a good time to hear with clarity what Mangis, Howell and all other Wheaton faculty members believe about issues upon which theology directly appertains, like abortion, homosexuality, and gender dysphoria.

What is really revealed through this controversy is not hidden racism, white privilege, academic provincialism, or an institutional resistance to learning. What is revealed is spiritual warfare. The nature and intensity of the criticism directed at this small private college, which stands courageously for Christ and His Kingdom in the midst of an ocean of colleges and universities that stand arrogantly in opposition to Christ and truth, exposes nothing other than old-as-the-hills spiritual warfare. Make no mistake, doctrinal fidelity at Wheaton College matters.

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem

We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington. Click HERE to register today!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.

Written by Rev. Dr. Eric M. Wallace, PhD.

Part I exposed the motives and ideology of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) founders. Part II explores further why BLM is problematic for theologically orthodox Christians and how the church should respond to it.

The Danger of BLM

One of the dangers of BLM is that it pulls on the heartstrings of those who really care about life—both blacks and whites. Ironically, those who claim concern for black lives ignore the abortion of black babies and the killing of black boys by other black boys in gang violence. While focusing almost exclusively on race as the source of injustice and harm, BLM engage in the politics of racial grievance.

The politics of racial grievance trigger an emotional response that ultimately shuts down logical inquiry or debate, rendering people vulnerable to emotional manipulation. It is designed to exploit whites and blacks alike. In whites, it creates guilt for segregation, Jim Crow laws, and slavery even though systemic racism was defeated decades ago. The politics of racial grievance is intended to make whites feel guilty so that they’ll make concessions to black leadership, funding the programs and activities sanctioned by black leaders.

The politics of racial grievance works on black people too. It galvanizes black solidarity behind a cause, including causes unworthy of black allegiance. The idea is that if anyone should be “down with the cause,” black people should, and if you’re not, you’re a sell-out, an Uncle Tom. Black people are expected to support black causes, period. No questions asked.

This is not a new phenomenon. Booker T. Washington identified people in his day that used the politics of racial grievance to manipulate blacks:

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

The dubious goal of the politics of racial grievance exploited by BLM and others is to finance their causes. Thus, in order to advance their agendas, they have to come up with a negative narrative regardless of its veracity. The story must pull on the heartstrings of blacks to ensure solidarity and of whites to keep them feeling guilty and compliant. Hence, the false narrative that “Blacks are being gunned down by white cops” excites those who have been conditioned to accept the claim regardless of its factual accuracy.

Black solidarity is often at odds with the truths of God’s Word. It pulls black Christians away from their solidarity with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For an example, in 1995 Louis Farrakhan and purportedly Christian ministers called on black men to travel to Washington D.C. for a day of atonement for their sins and individual and collective signs of reconciliation to their families and community. On the surface such an appeal appears reasonable and even praiseworthy. Those who take the Bible seriously, however, understand that the work of atonement was made through Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection:

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.  (Heb. 10:10-14)

Hebrews 10:26 says, that there is no other sacrifice for sin. Therefore, it is impossible for us to find any other atonement other than what Jesus did for us at Calvary. Neither the Nation of Islam nor Islam understands or adheres to this theology.

Furthermore, Christians should not be following people who don’t understand who Christ is and what He did. The Million Man March gave legitimacy to Farrakhan who neither understands nor affirms Christian theology. I would speculate that neither did the many ministers who were involved in this charade, which birthed nothing and made a mockery of Christianity. It is the people of God—committed followers of Jesus Christ—not the Nation of Islam or BLM, who must take a stand for true reconciliation and repentance.

Loyalty to the King

We can’t allow people who have no loyalty to Christ and His Kingdom to move us to disloyalty simply by appealing to the color of our skin. The call to follow Christ means leaving racial solidarity behind, especially when it conflicts with our identity in and solidarity with Jesus. Racial solidarity, apart from Christ, is idolatry.

In Matthew 10:37 Jesus says, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

He repeats it again in Matthew 16:24: “‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.’”

The forsaking of familial relationships also applies to racial and ethnic allegiances. Allegiance and honor to Christ must always be first.

Response of the Church

Matthew 5:13 tells us that as members of the Kingdom of Heaven and disciples of Christ, we are the “salt of the earth”—the preservative and seasoning agents of the earth. Verse 5:14 also calls us the “light of the World.” As Christ followers, our purpose is to bear light in the world, so that our good works will be seen by others and give glory to God. The question is, does Black Lives Matter meet these criteria? It depends on how you understand “good works.”

Just before these verses are found the Beatitudes where Jesus teaches about the foundations of righteous living: those who are poor in Spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those persecuted because of righteousness. Jesus, the righteous King, calls upon his disciples to be righteous: doing what God commands us. By doing so, we act as salt and light to the World.

So, how do we do that? How do we apply these principles of righteousness in our daily lives?

In Matthew 5:20, we are told that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. This is not a works-based salvation but, rather, a recognition that Jesus is the fulfillment of all righteousness, the law, and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). True disciples of Jesus take on His righteous mantel as sons and daughters of God.

In contrast, the scribes and Pharisees are hypocrites who practice “their righteousness” before men.  Jesus warns, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 6:1).

God’s righteousness is different from that of the Pharisees, or in our case the practices of BLM.

1. It must exceed the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law (5:21-48)
2. It must exceed the Pharisees’ motivation (6:1-21)
3. It must exceed the Pharisees’ value system (6:22-34)
4. It must exceed the Pharisees’ relationships (7:1-12)

If our righteousness does not affect our relationships with others, it lacks true fellowship with God.

Conclusion

BLM has created a false image. The BLM movement is interested in promoting a “progressive” social and political agenda—not in truly protecting black lives. They affirm homosexual activity and relationships, illegal immigration, and black liberation. Stories of the indisputably tragic deaths of black people at the hands of white cops are continually propagated while the tragic and senseless loss of preborn black babies’ lives and the lives of blacks gunned down in gang violence receive relatively little public attention.

Unfortunately, instead of uniting voices in an urgent call for righteousness and right relations between people, in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, BLM encouraged civil disobedience that became violent. How does that square with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-44: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”

The church has lost its way. We are suffering the consequences of having far too many church attendees and not enough disciples. After his resurrection, Jesus spoke these words:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matt. 28: 18-20).

It’s high time we focus on what Jesus commands. Indeed, He died and rose again because black lives do matter. However, He calls those black lives and all who would follow Him to a greater righteousness that is only found through life lived in Him. The church has the authority to change our communities for Christ, but it must be done for His glory and not our own agenda. It must be done in a way that glorifies God and does not promote racial division. May God help us to faithfully follow after Him, forsaking all else.

Read Part I here.

Dr. Eric Wallace is the co-founder and president of Freedom’s Journal Institute, and has organized the Black Conservative Summit and a one day conference “In Defense of Life: Why All Lives Matter.”  Dr. Wallace and his wife Jennifer live in the south suburbs of Chicago.

Support IFI

Please consider helping to support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

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

or online:

My goal here is not to offend. Neither is it to persuade. In matters of the spirit, there is but One capable of opening the eyes of the heart. Rather, my objective is to sow seeds of Truth so that the Holy Spirit might, according to His perfect pleasure, purpose and will, cultivate the soul as He deems just.

We Christ followers are admonished to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (see Matthew 5:44). This obliges us to at once love and pray for, among other antichrist subsets, the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, including the hundreds-of-millions who faithfully embrace Muhammad’s myriad commands to violence against the Christian, the Jew and all other non-Muslims.

It is impossible to do this in our flesh and can only be accomplished through the supernatural grace and power of the Holy Spirit. It is, indeed, our great hope and prayer that every Muslim – every human being – might surrender self and come to the saving knowledge and grace of Christ Jesus, who, alone, is “the way and the truth and the life.” For, “No one comes to the Father except through [Him]” (see John 14:6).

To be sure, it is the express desire of both God the Father and Christ His Son that each and every Muslim on earth should abandon Muhammad’s broad path to perdition, turnabout and move toward Christ’s narrow path to eternal life. “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

God both created and loves, in a way incomprehensible to the finite human mind, every human being ever born, or otherwise. He wove us together in our mother’s wombs and numbered our every hair. Yet God the Father has but one begotten Son. The rest of us, in order to become God’s children, must be adopted and grafted into the vine by, in and through the One who is the Son – He who is the Vine: Christ Jesus (see John 15:5).

Those who are not adopted by God are not children of God.

And so the Muslim is not a child of God.

Indeed, to become a child of God, we must ask God, through Christ, to adopt us. We mustn’t just believe upon Him – for “Even the demons believe that” (see James 2:19) – but, rather, we must also receive Him as Lord and Savior. We must follow Jesus, the one true God, as our only God. “But to all who believed him (Jesus) and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).

The pluralist notion that, “There are many paths to God,” is an insidious lie spread by the father of lies himself. Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” (Matthew 7:13).

Jesus is the “narrow gate.”

Merriam Webster defines “pluralism” as “a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality.”

To embrace pluralism is to embrace certain death.

The aim of pluralist philosophy is to muddy the waters and divert mankind from the “narrow gate” that leads to eternal salvation (Jesus), while, at one go, herding us along the “broad road” to eternal damnation (anything and everything that denies the singular and exclusive deity of Christ, or that rejects the certainty that He alone can save us from hell).

Pluralism is a non-starter. It is inherently self-contradictory and, therefore, self-defeating. Each of the world’s major religions fundamentally contradicts the other. They cannot all be true. Either one is true or none is true. Pick your “ism,” be it Muhammadism, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism, atheism, et al., and, serving to undo each, you will find the leavening lie of pluralism.

Christ is both tolerant and intolerant, utterly exclusive and wholly inclusive. Romans 10:13 promises, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.” And John 3:36 warns, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Not only do Muslims reject Christ, the Son of God, but those who are faithful to the teachings of their “prophet” Muhammad persecute, under flame and sword, His very body: the Christian faithful.

As I’ve said before, Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who, as He declared in no uncertain terms, is, alone, “the way and the truth and the life,” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to Allah, who, as declared Muhammad, is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54])

It’s worth again mentioning here that the Bible similarly calls Satan a deceiver. Revelation 12:9, for instance, explains that he “deceives the whole world.” Even though it is often claimed that Muslims, Christians and Jews “worship the same God,” this is so very much not so. Allah is not God. Allah is the deceiver, and, insofar as Christianity, true Christianity, spreads peace, love and truth – Islam, true Islam, spreads violence, hate and deception. Allah definitely exists. He’s just not God. Though he wanted to “ascend above the tops of the clouds” and “make [himself] like the Most High” (see Isaiah 14:14), Allah, most assuredly, is not God.

Indeed, the “best of deceivers” cares not whether we worship the idol of self, as do the secular-”progressives,” the deceiver himself, as do the Muslims, or some other false god. The deceptive one cares only that we deny God the Father, Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit, three in one.

To the Muslim, to everyone, know this: You may deny Christ until the day you die. But soon after, you will deny Him no more. Hate Him you may still, but deny Him you will not. Philippians 2:10-11 assures us, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The die was cast before time began. Every Christian, Jew, atheist and pagan, to include each and every Muslim on earth – or, like Muhammad, who once walked the earth – will, in the end, bow a knee in worship to Jesus.

Because “in the end” is just the beginning.

Yet, whether you bow first in this life, or first in the next, you will bow.

And the when and how will mean much.

For it will decide the where and how of your eternity.

Written by Dr. Frank Turek

How do we fix a world filled with murder, rape, betrayal, adultery, fraud, theft, sexual exploitation, pornography, bullying, abortion, terrorism, cheating, lying, child abuse, racism, assault, drugs, robbery, and countless other evils?

There will be no solutions unless we are honest about their underlying causes.  Although we don’t want to admit it, the truth is that every one of those problems can be traced back to a problem with the human heart.

No one knows that better than an honest cop.  My friend Jim Wallace is a cold-case homicide detective in California.  He’s been featured four times on Dateline for solving crimes that are decades old.  He’s noticed that every crime he has ever solved can be traced back to one or more of these three motives:  financial greed, relational lust, or the pursuit of power (money, sex and power).  We want these things so much that we are willing to use immoral means to get them.

In other words, the sick condition of our world is preceded and caused by the sick condition of our hearts.  That’s why we won’t improve the external world until we first improve our internal worlds.

You might think that this doesn’t really apply to you.  After all, you may be congratulating yourself because youhaven’t committed any of the crimes listed at the top of this column.

“Well, not most of them anyway,” you say.  “Who hasn’t lied or stolen something?   But I’m better than most people!”

Maybe so.  But your act of self-justification proves the point—instead of admitting our faults, our natural inclination is to minimize them or cover them up while claiming moral superiority.

We don’t want to admit this because it hurts our pride, which is also a heart issue.  “Don’t tell me I’m wrong!  You’re offending me!  You’re hurting my feelings!”

It’s no wonder free speech is under attack in the culture and on campus.  To tip a hat to Jack Nicholson, we “can’t handle the truth” because the truth exposes the fact that we are not really as good as we claim we are.  We can’t bear the fact that we are broken, narcissistic creatures who find it much easier and more natural to be selfish rather than selfless.

This affects even people who deny real right and wrong.  For example, leading atheist Richard Dawkins has declared, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

But Dawkins doesn’t act like he actually believes that. He recently insisted that a woman has the right to choose an abortion and asserted that it would be “immoral” to give birth to a baby with Down syndrome.  According to Dawkins, the “right to choose” is a good thing and giving birth to Down syndrome children is a bad thing.

Well, which is it?  Is there really good and evil, or are we just moist robots dancing to the music of our DNA?  If there is no objective morality, then there is no “right” to anything, whether it is abortion or the right to life.

And if there is no objective morality, then why does everyone, including atheists, try to justify their own immoral behavior?  As C.S. Lewis observed, “If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so— that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.”

Ironically, when we try to shift the responsibility for our immoral actions, we often appeal to other moral principles to justify ourselves:

• I used my expense account for personal items because I work harder than what they pay me, and it’s unjust that my boss makes so much more than me.
• I ran off with my assistant because she really loves me, unlike my wife who doesn’t give me the attention I deserve.
• I don’t have time for my kids because I’m too busy working hard to provide for their future.
• I had an abortion because it’s immoral to give birth to a Down syndrome child.

Even our excuses show that we really, deep down, believe in objective morality.  We often deceive ourselves into believing that something immoral is really moral (like abortion), but, as Thomas Jefferson famously declared, certain universal moral truths are “self evident.”  All rational people know this. Unfortunately, our tendency for moral self-deception is also universal. We know what’s right, but we make excuses for doing wrong by trying to appeal to what is right!

Where does all this leave us?

There is hope. Regardless of what you believe about the Bible, what can’t be denied is that the Bible nails the truth about human nature and our deceptive human hearts.  The book of Genesis admits that “every intent of the thoughts of [mankind’s] heart was only evil continually.”  Jeremiah wrote, “The heart is deceitful and wicked, who can know it?” Jesus declared, that people “love darkness rather than light.” And Paul observed that we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” in order to continue in our sins.

But the Bible doesn’t just accurately state the problem; it also reveals the only possible solution.  Because of our moral failings, God’s infinite love compelled Him to add humanity over his Deity and come to earth in the person of Jesus that first Christmas.  The incarnation was necessary because an infinitely just Being cannot allow sin to go unpunished.  Instead of punishing us, God found in Jesus an innocent human substitute to voluntarily take the punishment for us.

Our pride tells us that we can rescue ourselves, but we can’t. No matter how much we try to justify ourselves or pledge to do better in the future, we can’t escape the fact that we’re guilty for what we’ve already done.

So it’s important to ask this Christmas season, “Have you accepted the pardon Jesus came to offer you?  And have you asked Him into your life to help heal your self-centered heart?”  If not, why not?  He’s the only true solution to the world’s evils and the heart problem that afflicts each one of us.

This article was originally posted at AFA.net.

It is easy to become angry, disheartened, and perhaps even fearful about the cultural trajectory of our nation and the world. In light of the seismic upheavals in cultural norms, how much should we be concerned for the difficulties the future holds for our children and grandchildren?

Thanks be to God, Scripture provides both answers and reassurance.

In his letter to the church at Philippi, St. Paul instructs the Philippians and us “not to be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God” (Phil. 4:6). Likewise, in the 12^th chapter of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus exhorts all who follow him not to be anxious about the worries of the day, but rather to store up treasure in heaven, for where our treasure is, there will our hearts be also. Both of these passages call us to reorient our perspective.

It is undeniable that our culture has become more secular, and a large portion of society espouses a minimal to nonexistent biblical worldview. Yet, if we think that our great-grandparents lived in a world where all was right, we are fooling ourselves. We live in a fallen world. From Eden until the end of history, we are told “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9).

The fact that our culture is hostile toward Christians and Christianity is not a new development. Throughout history, we have seen the ways that our brothers and sisters have been discriminated against, oppressed and persecuted because of their faith in Jesus, and by God’s grace, we have seen how they were able to persevere and even thrive in unfriendly environments. We must trust that God will strengthen and bless us to withstand and prosper in spite of the attacks from our culture.

For years now, biblical sexual morality has been rejected, and in certain communities, the institution of marriage has been decimated. The consequences have been devastating for children, singles, couples and families. Still, we stand firm in hope rooted in Scripture that in due time the biblical standards of marriage and family will restore culture.

Writing to Titus, the Apostle Paul reminds Christians that the grace of God has enabled believers to “renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age” (Titus 2:21). If today we will soberly hold to biblical standards in sex, marriage and family, the outcomes will stand in stark contrast to those of the world around us. In other words, living counter-cultural lives will be a witness for the Christian faith and biblical truth.

The pro-life community has certainly taken a counter-cultural stand. Consider the enormous strides it has realized over the past four decades. Thanks to their dedication and willingness to be mocked and reviled, it is no longer widely acceptable to claim that a pre-born baby is just a clump of cells or a disposable part of a woman’s body.

Such assertions are outlandish in the face of modern medical advances, especially as doctors now routinely perform life-saving surgical procedures in utero. More recently, the despicable actions of Planned Parenthood (harvesting and selling baby parts) make it extremely difficult for the left to deny the humanity of the pre-born child.

In our lives, each of us will encounter people – family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers – who have been damaged by the seductive lies of our culture. As believers, we have an awesome opportunity and responsibility to point these vulnerable refugees to the truth and to the Author of Truth, so they will find hope and healing through the Lord Jesus Christ.

We must understand that God has sovereignly placed us here, at this exact time, in this specific place, and he has given us everything we need to serve him and our fellow man. This reality is humbling and ought to cause us to fall to our knees in gratitude. In spite of the wickedness of our culture, I praise God that I am privileged to live during this period of human history, in a state and nation that is blessed beyond measure.

Yet, there is much work to be done! As we faithfully roll up our sleeves, serving as ambassadors of another kingdom, may we bring honor and glory to the name of the LORD.

End-of-Year Challange

As you may know,  IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $110,000. That’s right, a small group of IFI supporters are providing a $55,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2016!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

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

Written by Rev. Dr. Eric M. Wallace, PhD.

In my lifetime I have seen a number of organizations and movements pull at the heartstrings of the African American community. In 1995 it was the Million Man March calling on black men to atone for their failings. Today, it is the Black Lives Matter movement that draws our attention and concern. Who of African descent can disagree with the idea that black lives matter? My mother is black. My father is black. My brother and cousins are black. My wife and children are black. How could I not be interested in this movement? How could we not be concerned about the young black men dying at an alarming rate at the hands of police officers and gang violence?

A few months ago, I reluctantly accepted an invitation to speak on the topic of whether Christians should be involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. The topic was especially timely because of growing racial unrest over the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago (October 2014), the shooting death of Michael Brown (August 2014) and the gang assassination of Tyshawn Lee. It was also timely because in July 2015, our organization, Freedom’s Journal Institute, held a conference titled “In Defense of Life: Why All Lives Matter.”

The video of Laquan McDonald’s murder had just come to light, and demonstrations were happening in Chicago. These demonstrations were led by people I didn’t necessarily agree with and whose tactics I did not view as glorifying to God. Once I visited the Black Lives Matter (BLM) website, however, I was glad I had accepted the speaking engagement. The BLM website specifically identifies itself with the black liberation movement:

#BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society….It goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all.

Black Lives Matter affirms the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.  It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.  It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement.

The history, leadership, and troubling emphases of the BLM movement–including how it addresses homosexuality and gender confusion–must be exposed.

The differences between the Civil Rights Movement and the black liberation movement are significant. While the Civil Rights Movement was led by ministers, many of whom held a biblical worldview and infused their protests with prayer, the black liberation movement was associated with the Black Panthers, Angela Davis, and Marxist ideology.  Unfortunately, today’s civil right leaders have largely abandoned a biblical worldview.

The identity of the founders of BLM helps explain the radical underpinnings of the BLM movement. Three community organizer/activist women founded this organization after the death of Trayvon Martin. Two of the three, Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors, identify as “queer” black women. The third founder, Opal Tometi, executive director of Black Alliance for Just Immigration, explained in an interview with The Nation that “we are diligently uplifting black trans women and so the work on the ground in many places does reflect that.”

According to Truthout, Tometi, who is the child of parents who immigrated to the United States illegally, explains that BLM was “[n]ever simply a reaction to police violence against African Americans in the United States, Black Lives Matter was always conceived of as a strategic response to white supremacy.”

In an interview with Cosmopolitan Magazine, Ms. Cullors shared that she is inspired by Assata Shakur who was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of a New Jersey state trooper and who escaped from federal prison and has been living freely in Cuba since 1984. Shakur was also a member of the former Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army.

Christians who take the Bible seriously must not affirm either homosexuality or gender-confusion. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul teaches  that God unequivocally condemns homosexual practice. Paul also made clear in 1 Corinthians that God can bring deliverance from sins—including homosexual practice:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

By affirming what God condemns, BLM stands in opposition to the transformative power of Jesus.

While BLM claims to seek justice for oppressed and victimized persons around the world, they fail to address the genocide of black babies through abortion or the deaths of young African American males from gang violence in their list of social injustices. Apparently, what matters most to BLM is ideology.

Reading the “Herstory” page on the BLM website illuminates the organization’s central concerns:

1. Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.
2. Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention.
3. Black people are deprived of basic human rights and dignity.
4. Black poverty and genocide is state violence.
5. When black people get free, everybody gets free.
6. Black liberation has played an important role in inspiring and anchoring, through practice and theory, social movements for the liberation of all people.

I was surprised to find that with the exception of the last one, I agree with these beliefs. I disagree, however, with the causes of the problems as well as the solutions. What is omitted from the concerns of BLM is the place that both liberal public policy and Planned Parenthood have had in “systematically and intentionally” targeting and destroying the black community. And because BLM gets the causes wrong, it gets the solutions wrong as well.

Whereas BLM sees white supremacy and institutional racism as the causes of the poverty and violence that afflict the black community, conservatives view the causes as bad governmental practices and policies. Most conservatives have long argued that liberal public policies have “systemically targeted” the black family. Blacks have been “deprived of their human rights and dignity” through government largess, which has perpetuated poverty and destroyed the black family. In other words, the “state” has committed violence against black people.

The very liberal social agenda embraced by “progressives” who pursue bigger, more intrusive government continues to harm the lives of blacks. For example, here in Illinois, the economy and public school system, shaped for decades by liberals and liberal policy, are among the worst in the nation. Whose lives are harmed most directly and significantly by our terrible economy and government schools? Black lives.

Worse still, Planned Parenthood (and the abortion lobby in general) has targeted the black community “for demise” since the days when its racist founder Margaret Sanger led the organization. Planned Parenthood continues to commit genocide against black babies.

According to BLM, “black liberation” can be achieved only by reversing the roles of master and slave. The tragic truth is that the policies sought by BLM only serve to keep the black community enslaved. The freedom BLM proposes is not freedom at all. It is slavery under a different master. It calls on black Christians who are already free in Christ to abandon their freedom for black solidarity, which for the Christian is a form of idolatry. The politics of BLM is the politics of racial grievance, a tool used to manipulate both blacks and whites alike.

Read part two HERE.

Dr. Eric Wallace is the co-founder and president of Freedom’s Journal Institute, and has organized the Black Conservative Summit and a one day conference “In Defense of Life: Why All Lives Matter.”  Dr. Wallace and his wife Jennifer live in the south suburbs of Chicago.

Support IFI

Please consider helping to support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

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

Written by Teddy James

There was a time in my life when I questioned everything. I questioned the existence of God. I questioned the reality of heaven and eternal life. I questioned what it meant to be saved. I had many, many questions. And my dad had to listen to each and every one of them.

Sometimes he would give me answers as soon as I made an inquiry. Other times he would give me a quizzical glance and say, “I don’t know how to answer that. Give me a day to find something for you.” That was my introduction to apologetics.

After I became a follower of Jesus, the questions did not stop. Actually, they increased. My questions became deeper and more focused. I began to see the life-changing ramifications of some of the answers to my questions. I began learning what it meant to live out the Christian life in a fallen world. That was my introduction to the idea that apologetics does not end when salvation begins.

I have been pursuing apologetics ever since. Through that pursuit, I had an opportunity to listen to Sean McDowell, a speaker, author, and nationally known apologist at Alex McFarland’s Truth for a New Generation in 2013 and heard McDowell speak about relational apologetics. It made such an impact that when I recently had a chance to interview him two years later, I focused specifically on that idea. The result is my latest article in the January 2016 issue of the AFA Journal.

During the interview, I asked McDowell how apologetics fits into the home. He conveyed several important ideas parents and grandparents should keep in mind if they hope to pass their faith on to their children.

Passing faith on to young children

It is clichéd to say children are like sponges. They soak up everything they see and hear. But there is much truth in that adage. They do not have the ability to articulate everything they learn, but it does impact them in very real, tangible ways. That is why presenting the person of Jesus to them, even at a very young age, is very important. But McDowell said that what we say is secondary to what we do as parents of young children.

He said, “The most important thing for any parent of a young child to do is invest in his or her spouse. Make sure your spouse knows you love and support him or her. Make certain your children see that you are investing in your spouse. Second to that is investing in your children. Start small. Look for little opportunities to have conversations. You want to model biblical truth so they see you living it, doing it. Their faith journey will begin with small steps, but it will be small steps you help them take.”

Passing faith on to teens

According to the book Families and Faith by Vern Bengston, one of the largest studies on faith transmissions, the single most important factor for children adopting the faith of their parents is a warm relationship with their fathers.

McDowell was quick to point out, “This does not mean a strong relationship with mom is not important. But the study does specifically mention fathers. But the bigger picture we have to see is that if we want to pass on the faith, it has to be done in the context of relationship, love, and care.”

So many parents are afraid of their children asking a question they do not know the answer to, but McDowell said apologetics and passing on one’s faith is about more than knowing right answers. He said, “Look at Deuteronomy 6:4-9. It says to speak of God in conversations, in the everyday interactions of life. That only takes place in relationships.”

Utilizing solid resources

Even families with great relationships can use great resources. The problem is knowing what resources can be trusted to help children and grandchildren build a solid, biblical worldview. McDowell said, “If you have a child or grandchild between 16 and 23, one of the best things you can do is send him or her to Summit Ministries. If I could only recommend one thing, that would be it. Hands down.”

Summit Ministries host conferences in Colorado, California, and Tennessee. It also invites students to come for Summit Semesters where they are taught from some of the top Christians scholars in America. Summit Ministries offers a plethora of other opportunities to help teens and young adults build a strong biblical worldview.

Every parent and grandparent desires for the young in their families to come to faith early and pursue Jesus for the rest of their lives. Pursuing those children in the context of a healthy, loving relationship and taking advantage of the great tools available can help make that desire a reality.

This article was originally posted at AFA.net.

If you ever find yourself in Bethlehem of Judea, there’s one attraction you shouldn’t miss. First, you’d need to stoop low enough to pass through the four-foot-high Door of Humility. From there, you’d make your way down a spiraling stone staircase to find a small grotto in the bedrock lined with marble and adorned with luxurious tapestries. In the center of that little cave, attached to the floor, is a 14-pointed silver star and an inscription in Latin which reads, “Here Jesus Christ was born to the Virgin Mary.”

As you can imagine, the Church of the Nativity is a busy place these days. Over the course of a year, as many as 2 million visitors pass through this shrine to the birthplace of Jesus Christ. This wasn’t always the case, though. For over 200 years, from the 2^nd to the 4^th centuries, this grotto was intentionally obscured with the purpose of wiping it off the face of the earth.  So how do we know that this now not-so-humble grotto is actually the birthplace of Christ? For that, we have a determined enemy of God to thank.

Beginning in 132 A.D., the Roman Emperor Hadrian quashed an insurrection from a would-be messiah, Bar-Kokhba. To prevent future revolts, Hadrian expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem and paganized Jewish and Christian holy sites in the area. He set up a temple to Venus on the site of the Holy Sepulcher and cleared out the grotto of the nativity in Bethlehem. And in its place, he built a shrine to Adonis.

But things didn’t turn out the way Hadrian intended. In his book, “In the Fullness of Time,” historian Paul L. Maier relates how the Church Father Origen visited the area in the early 200s and wrote, that “in Bethlehem the grotto was shown where Jesus was born….What was shown to me is familiar to everyone in the area. The heathen themselves tell anyone willing to listen that in the said grotto Jesus was born whom the Christians revere.”

As Dr. Maier notes, “Hadrian tried to desecrate the Jewish and Christian holy places in Palestine, but ironically, thereby preserved their identity.”

It wasn’t until the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity that the area was fully redeemed from Hadrian’s sacrilege. Under the guidance of Constantine’s mother, Helena, the first Church of the Nativity was built in 339A.D. and restored again in 553. It stands as the oldest continuously operating church in the world.

I share this story because it’s worth remembering that all the would-be leaders who set themselves up against the living God find themselves, as we often hear today, on the wrong side of history. While our circumstances may indeed look grim at times, we can trust that God is working behind the scenes of present evil to bring forth even greater good and glory to Himself.

And I’ve got another reason for sharing this story. The same destructive impulses in Hadrian also threaten us today. The small “g” god used to “replace” Jesus in Bethlehem was Adonis, the youthful Greek god of beauty and desire. The parallel to modern Western culture seems ironic and obvious.

Sadly, we also see many working right now to destroy Christianity, be they secular materialists, radical Islamists, or others. That they believe they can destroy our faith only shows how they fundamentally misunderstand it.

God’s enemies seem to think that if they publicly ridicule us, deface a church,  or worse—as is happening in many places around the world—that we’ll simply walk away from all we’ve been given. But we do not worship places, events, or good fortune, but a person, the Son of God—the Word made flesh. Our faith continues not only because it’s true, but because the Lord of the Universe lives within us. And no one can separate us from Him and His love.

This article was originally posted at Breakpoint.org

Written by Richard C. Baker

It is Christmas season, and many of us will follow the old ritual of watching It’s a Wonderful Life. There George Bailey, after pouring himself out for his community in the grips of the Depression, thinks he has made no difference and despairs of life. That is, until Clarence the angel sets him straight as to what would have happened had he not been there.

There’s an enormous misunderstanding regarding the U.S. Constitution as it relates to religion and it’s causing all sorts of trouble for folks that just want to pray. The misunderstanding is being intentionally propagated by an atheist group that wants to ban religious expression in public.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a notion that government and religion are mutually exclusive. Their mission is “to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.”

The problem here is that there is no such “constitutional principle.”

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence is there a word about keeping religion out of public life; or the so-called “separation of church and state.” In fact, what the U.S. Constitution does say is that the government has no authority to make any laws pertaining to the free exercise and expression of religion.

But that doesn’t stop this atheist group from demanding that coaches not take part in team prayers.

One of the latest cases comes from the western suburbs where a high school football coach is under fire for simply being present with his players during team prayers. (Click here to read the local article.)

The complaint came after a picture of the Naperville Central High School football team, including the coaches, was sent to the FFRF. They sent a letter to the school district demanding the action cease immediately.

Now, first of all, I want to know why the school district didn’t tell the FFRF to take a hike. The FFRF has no legal power and very little influence. In fact, when schools or other groups stand up to the FFRF they tend to back down and slink back into the shadows. So I can’t help but wonder why the school district didn’t simply dismiss the letter. I will applaud their response though, in letting the FFRF know that what takes place is voluntary and student led, and does not force anyone to participate. In other words, it’s none of their business.

But let’s consider the larger issue here.

Are we really ready to concede that school employees have no religious freedom? Just because someone works for a school doesn’t mean their religious rights are thrown out the window. I’m not suggesting that teachers or coaches can demand their class or athletes attend a Bible study, but the idea that they can’t attend a student led prayer is absurd.

The FFRF says that school employees taking part in a student led prayer is the government supporting religion and a form of coercion. Such a notion is so preposterous it almost doesn’t deserve a response. By the way, why doesn’t the FFRF get upset and send angry letters when our president mentions God or tells Americans to pray? That’s odd.

This shows that the FFRF doesn’t know the history of our country and the intentions of our Founders. History is rife with what our Founders thought of the Bible and faith. Not only were they themselves Christians, but they worked tirelessly to create a country where faith was not relegated to a Sunday ritual but was integrated into every facet of daily life. (Click here to read quotes from our Founders regarding faith.) The idea that public prayer by school employees would be considered wrong would be foreign to them.

In an update to this ongoing story I was impressed to read the statement released by the football team. In response to the attack from the FFRF they wrote:

“The players will continue this tradition of praying before our games, and would like to extend an invitation to all members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, to come out next fall and watch us pray and play the game we love…We, as a football team and a family, give Coach Stine our full support…[Coach Michael Stine] “is the best coach in the state, and cares about each and every one of us more than any other coach cares about his players.”

That sounds like a well-reasoned, mature response from a group of athletes that have a great deal of respect for their coach. The response of the FFRF to the football team’s statement sounds like a spoiled-child that couldn’t bully someone to get their way. They said of the football team’s statement:

“It’s not the fault of these students that they do not understand the legal principle being violated when a coach leads, encourages or participates in prayer with student players.”

The FFRF appears to think the football team is too dumb to understand what’s going on. I think they understand perfectly. I think what is going on before and after games reflects the heart of this community and that both students and parents are supportive. And what the FFRF is unwilling to recognize is that a majority of people in America are supportive of moments of silence and even prayers before and after sporting events. They understand these voluntary exercises of religious freedom as being necessary and healthy.

What this really comes down to is the FFRF’s contempt for Christianity and wanting to impose their “religion” of secularism on our society.

Jesus said, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” John 15:18

They hate the One to whom we pray. They don’t want to see any Christian religious expression in public places or as part of anything associated with the government. But they are perfectly content to allow and support expressions of atheism. This hypocrisy is contemptible because atheism itself is a religion with tenets as any other religion.

There is no “constitutional principle” that gives them the right to impose their religion of atheism while Christianity is banned.

The FFRF doesn’t like anything religious. As secular humanists they believe that this world is all there is. So they are happy to help develop someone physically and mentally. But when it comes to spiritual development they see that as a waste of time. And they think a coach that cares enough to develop his players physically, mentally, and spiritually is misusing his position.

I’m reminded of a high profile coach that was targeted by the FFRF for his voluntary spiritual development activities. Mark Richt, the famed coach of the Georgia Bulldogs (now with the Miami Hurricanes) made it clear that he and his staff care about every aspect of their players, including their spiritual well-being. When he was attacked by the FFRF he responded:

“I think we’re made of our body, we’re made of our mind, we’re made of spirit. We work hard on our bodies as far as getting them in shape. We’re working on schemes, plays, lifting, running, nutrition, sleep. When we work on the mind, we care very much about them getting their degrees, tutoring, academic appointments, classes and all, meetings. All those things are mandatory. But anything that has to do with growing spiritually, which I encourage our guys to grow spiritually, I believe our spirit is going to live beyond our body. I encourage them to grow spiritually but I don’t tell them what to believe in. Everything we do is strictly voluntary in that regard.”

Coach Richt and Coach Stine represent what the Founders envisioned of America. A place where people could freely take part in spiritual development and expressions of their religious beliefs without coercion. That includes the right to abstain from such expressions as well. The support that both of these coaches have been given shows that Americans continue to see value in such voluntary expressions. Those who disagree should exercise tolerance and be reminded that the Constitution ensures the government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Take ACTION:  If you know anyone who goes to this Naperville high school (teacher or student) who would like to challenge this feckless mandate, please contact us by email at contactus@illinoisfamily.org.

Support IFI

Please consider supporting IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2016!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

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

This intellectual revolution began with four lectures in late 1915 presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. The lectures were given by Albert Einstein, and before the end of the year Einstein would publish his argument for a “General Theory of Relativity.” Those lectures launched an intellectual revolution, and Einstein’s theory of relativity is essential to our understanding of the modern age.

The 100th anniversary of a scientific theory is not necessarily a matter of great cultural importance. Einstein had developed his Special Theory of Relativity a decade earlier, but his General Theory–extended to the entire cosmos–was breathtaking in its revolutionary power. Einstein replaced the world of Newtonian physics with a new world marked by four dimensions, instead of just three. Time, added as a fourth dimension, changed everything.

Einstein summarized his own theory in these words:

“The ‘Principle of Relativity’ in its widest sense is contained in the statement: The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of ‘absolute motion;’ or, shorter but less precise: There is no ‘absolute motion.’”

Thus, time, matter, and energy are relative, and not absolute. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Thomas Levenson recently called Einstein’s theory “the greatest intellectual accomplishment of the twentieth century.” The Economist, marking the centennial of Einstein’s lectures, called the General Theory of Relativity “one of the highest intellectual achievements of humanity.” It is no exaggeration to claim Einstein’s theory as the very foundation of modern cosmology.

And yet, most modern people–even well educated moderns–have little idea of the actual theory or of its scientific significance. In everyday life, Newtonian physics serves very well. Cosmologists may depend on Einstein’s theory in their daily work, but few others do.

Nevertheless, the cultural impact of Einstein’s theory extends far beyond the laboratory or the science classroom. As the twentieth century unfolded, Einstein’s theory of relativity quickly became a symbol and catalyst for something very different — the development of moral relativism.

Einstein was not a moral relativist, nor did he believe that his theories had any essential moral or cultural meaning. He recoiled when his theory of relativity was blamed or credited for the birth of modern art (Cubism, in particular) or any other cultural development.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin defended Einstein against any such charge:  “The word relativity has been widely misinterpreted as relativism, the denial, or doubt about, the objectivity of truth or moral values.” He continued, “This was the opposite of what Einstein believed. He was a man of simple and absolute moral convictions, which were expressed in all he was and did.”

Fair enough. Albert Einstein was not a moral relativist and his theory of relativity has nothing to do with morality. The problem, however, is simple — Einstein’s theory of relativity entered the popular consciousness as a generalized relativism. The issue here is not to blame Albert Einstein. He is not responsible for the misuse, misapplication, and misappropriation of his theory. But, in any event, for millions of modern people relativity was understood as relativism. And that misunderstanding is one of the toxic developments of the modern age.

As Walter Isaacson, Einstein’s most important biographer, explains:

“In both his science and his moral philosophy, Einstein was driven by a quest for certainty and deterministic laws. If his theory of relativity produced ripples that unsettled the realms of morality and culture, this was not caused by what Einstein believed but by how he was popularly interpreted.”

That is exactly the issue. Einstein, Isaacson reveals, was an influence on the emergence of relativism as a major theme in modern art, philosophy, and morality, even if that was not his intention at all. In Isaacson’s words, “there was a more complex relationship between Einstein’s theories and the whole witch’s brew of ideas and emotions in the early twentieth century that bubbled up from the highly charged cauldron of modernism.”

Historian Paul Johnson gets it exactly right as he describes the cultural impact of Einstein’s theories:

“Is was as though the spinning globe had been taken off its axis and cast adrift in a universe which no longer conformed to accustomed standards of measurement. At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps inevitably, relativity became confused with relativism.”

Johnson goes further, arguing that “the public response to relativity was one of the principle formative influences on the course of twentieth-century history. It formed a knife, inadvertently wielded by its author, to help cut society adrift from its traditional moorings in the faith and morals of Judeo-Christian culture.”

By the middle of the twentieth century, moral relativism was a major influence in the cultural revolutions that reshaped entire societies. Artists, filmmakers, authors, and playwrights were joined by an army of psychotherapists, academics, liberal theologians, and academic revolutionaries — all seeking to reject absolute moral norms and absolute truth and to establish relativism as the new worldview.

They were stunningly successful.

As Allan Bloom famously observed in his 1987 bestseller,The Closing of the American Mind, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”

Moral relativism and the rejection of absolute truth now shape the modern post-Christian mind. Indeed, relativism is virtually taken for granted, at least as an excuse for overthrowing theistic truth claims and any restrictive morality.

And so, Einstein is variously blamed or thanked for a moral revolution he never intended or wanted. The lesson for the rest of us is clear. Not only do ideas have consequences, they often have consequences that are neither foreseen or predicted.

Or, to put it another way — as we think about the centennial of Albert Einstein’s famed lectures on the General Theory of Relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences back in 1915, let us remember that what happens in the lecture hall will not stay in the lecture hall.

This article was originally posted at AlbertMohler.com