Come Reason's Apologetics Notes

What Happens When a Civilization Ignores God? (The Bible Already Told Us)

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 18:30:00 +0000

Hi All,

I think most people take civilization for granted. We have all been reared since infancy in a world where we can enjoy the fruits of centuries of progress. For example, many Eastern, African, and Aboriginal peoples must still walk long distances with large pots to capture water for the day’s chores while we have been living off the Romans’ development of infrastructure so the water comes to you for a couple of millennia.

But it isn’t simply practical convenience that makes a civilization. As I discussed in my most recent podcast linked below, civilization can be described as the richness of life. That feeling you have knowing you are part of something that seeks out the best in ourselves and marks it for the world to see. Or, to quote T.S. Eliot from his book Christianity and Culture, “Culture may even be described simply as that which makes life worth living. And it is what justifies other peoples and other generations in saying, when they contemplate the remains and the influence of an extinct civilization, that it was worth while for that civilisation to have existed.”

Yet, are we passing down those values and concepts of beauty that have been cultivated by our forefathers? Today’s society values new and edgy rather than long-standing tradition and the tried-and-tested. We like the excitement of the unfamiliar and become shocked when they birth disaster. Just look at the transgender calamity of the last ten years. Will anyone think a thousand years from now that cutting off functional organs in our children was something that made it worthwhile for our civilization to have existed?

A central point Eliot makes in his essay on the “Three Senses of Culture” is that the development of culture can never be separated from a society’s religion. Religion refines culture as it informs us as to what is the good to which we should aspire, what is the truth about the world and how it works, and what should classify as beautiful. In other words, how we can aim to grow into better versions of ourselves. It is our faith that shapes and molds the values to empower our civilization to greater heights and the legacy of Western civilization shows this.

The crisis in failing to pass along the truth of Christianity means we are truly in danger of warping our cultural understanding of the good, the true, and the beautiful. And that means the Christian west is in danger of becoming as extinct as the Aztecs or the Babylonians—an interesting museum piece, but not much more.

MINISTRY UPDATE – Dare to Defend Coming to Kalamazoo!

I’m very excited to announce that our next Dare to Defend Conference has been set for September 25 and 26 in Kalamazoo, Michigan! The theme of the conference is Dare to Defend: The Facts of Faith in a World of “My Truth” and will feature speakers such as Dr. Tim McGrew, Dr. Doug Groothuis, Dr. Bradley S. Belcher and Rob Bowman and myself. We are putting together the website now and tickets should go on sale beginning April 1. Here’s a short description of what you’ll be experiencing:

In a culture that says truth is personal and faith is private, can Christianity really stand up to scrutiny? Dare to Defend: The Facts of Faith in a World of “My Truth” is a powerful weekend designed to equip everyday believers and students with clear, compelling reasons for confidence in the Christian faith. Explore the historical evidence for the Resurrection, the reliability of Scripture, and how to answer the toughest cultural challenges posed to believers today. Learn why Christianity is not built on wishful thinking or emotional preference—but on clear evidence that can be examined and defended. If you’ve ever wondered whether your faith can withstand tough questions, join us this September.

I’m busy with several different writing projects as well. I’ve finished a rough draft of a book telling the true story of an Iranian woman’s journey from Islam to Christ, and showing how she survived and overcame both depression and physical abuse by discovering Jesus and his healing. I’m also a co-editor on an upcoming compilation tentatively entitled 8 Things The Church Must Answer Now: Christian Apologetics for Our Cultural Moment. I will be contributing two chapters, one on the threat to the traditional family and one on the pervasive abuse of language to score political points. Both these projects are extremely important, especially with the headlines we read today. Please keep these in prayer. Writing is hard work!

FINANCIAL UPDATE

As you might imagine, all the projects described above require significant time and resources. God has faithfully sustained this ministry for thirty years, but continuing this work has often required stretching our resources.

That’s why I’m preparing to launch our Defenders Campaign, seeking individuals who recognize how important this ministry is in helping Christians think clearly and engage our culture.

A Defender is someone who commits to supporting this ministry monthly. There are several giving levels to choose from, and Defenders receive exclusive access to our Dare to Defend Library—a collection of videos, notes, and resources not available to the general public.

You can become a Defender today at:
https://www.comereason/defenders/

Or, if you prefer, you can make a secure onetime gift through our giving page:
https://www.comereason.org/support/

Either way, your partnership is a tremendous blessing to this ministry.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR STORY

One of the most encouraging things for us at Come Reason is hearing how God uses this ministry in people’s lives. Many readers have told us that our talks, articles, and videos have helped them better understand Christianity and engage others with confidence.

If Come Reason has impacted you, would you consider sharing a short story with us? Even a few sentences can make a difference and may encourage others in their faith journey.

Here are a few prompts if helpful:

What questions or challenges were you facing before encountering Come Reason? How has that changed?
Was there a particular talk, article, or video that made a difference to you?
How has Come Reason helped strengthen your confidence in your faith or conversations about Christianity?
Have you seen something you learned here influence others in your life?
If you were describing Come Reason to someone new, what would you say about its impact on you?

You can simply reply to this email and share your thoughts. With your permission, we may share a portion of your story in a future newsletter to encourage others.

Thank you for being part of the Come Reason community and may you be blessed this month!

Blessings,
Lenny

What Happens When a Civilization Ignores God? The Bible Already Told Us

In this episode of the Come Let Us Reason Podcast, Lenny Esposito explores Deuteronomy 4 and Moses’ warning that cultures survive only if they listen to God’s Word, remember the lessons of the past, and pass those truths to the next generation.Drawing from thinkers like C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Roger Scruton, this episode examines how the erosion of Judeo-Christian foundations threatens modern society—and why the biblical warning is more relevant today than ever.

Watch ➤

If You Burned Every Bible, You’d Still Be Stuck with Jesus — Here’s Why

What if someone destroyed every Bible ever printed? Would the case for Jesus disappear with them? Cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace argues the answer is a definitive no. In this compelling episode, Wallace applies the same investigative technique he used to solve decades-old murders to one of history's most contested questions: who was Jesus of Nazareth, and does the evidence demand a verdict? Using what he calls the "fuse and fallout" method Wallace traces the historical shockwave of Jesus's life through science, art, music, education, and world religion. What he found surprised even him.

Watch ➤

Positioned for Miracles: The Faithful Steps God Uses to Do the Extraordinary

Do miracles still happen today? And if they do, why do some believers seem to experience God’s power while others never do? In this episode, we explore how ordinary, covenant-rooted faithfulness positioned Israel to experience extraordinary results — and what that means for believers today. If you’ve ever longed to see God move in your life, this episode will help you understand the practical steps Scripture models for being fully used by Him.

Watch ➤

What Drives a Cult Leader like David Koresh?

Thirty-three years ago on March 16, the U.S. Government surrounded the compound of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, sparking a stand-off that would last 51 days. It tragically ended in gunfire with 75 of the 84 people inside dead, including children. Just what motivates a cult leader like Koresh and why would people follow him to their deaths?

Read More ➤

How Can I Know I'm Going to Heaven?

Can just praying a prayer get you into heaven? In this article, Lenny answers a young person who is questioning her faith and wondering if God is real, how we can hear from Him, and how we can know where our eternal destiny lies.

Read more ➤

Upcoming Speaking Events:

Christianity, Superhero Movies, and the Problem of Evil
March 16, 2026
Turining Point USA CBU Meeting
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

This Changes Everything: The One True God
April 12, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

Why Doesn’t God Make Himself More Obvious?
April 19, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

Michigan Dare to Defend Conference: The Facts of Faith in a World of “My Truth”
September 25 -26, 2026
Oakwood Bible Church
855 South Drake Road
Kalamazoo, MI 49009
Details ➤

SUPPORT COME REASON

1. T. S. Eliot. Christianity and Culture: The Idea of a Christian Society and Notes toward the Definition of Culture. Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949. 100.

30 Years Online: What God Has Done From Dial-Up to Now

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:50:00 +0000

Home

Donate

Contact

January 2026

Hi All,

Happy New Year!

2026 is upon us and looks to be quite a celebratory year. The Winter Olympics will be held in Italy, the FIFA World Cup in Los Angeles, and the year marks several notable anniversaries, such as 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Another noted anniversary is that 2026 marks thirty years since the launch of Come Reason! It was just after buying the family a new computer system for Christmas in 1995 that I decided to learn more about this new internet and build a website. Back in those days, I only had a dial-up connection with a modem, and our service provider was the local newspaper. Still, it gave us some server space, and I wanted to try to create an online “Bible-Answer Man”-type site that took the Bible seriously. However, to do so, one needs content.

Back in those days, there used to exist small, local public message boards known as Bulletin Board Systems, or BBSes. You’d use a floppy disk with the software to dial into the server, where there were different groups chatting on different topics. It was the precursor to online forums. I logged into a Christian board and found a discussion between a Christian and an atheist where the atheist offered his objections to belief. I responded to each objection and sent him my replies. He wrote back, and we had another exchange. Those initial interactions are still part of the site, and you can read them here. Others then wrote in, and the site was off and running.

I hadn’t planned on this becoming my full-time occupation—when I started, I didn’t even know the word apologetics—yet God has graciously blessed the endeavor, and now, thirty years later, I’m still engaging with people all around the world online and in many different formats! It is truly and only by God’s leading and grace that I’ve been able to do what I do, and through His blessing I can continue to do so!

I’m currently studying the book of Deuteronomy. There, Moses recounts to the children of Israel all the Lord has done to protect them in their wilderness wanderings. But he mostly spends his time instructing them on how to successfully establish their new kingdom in the Promised Land. He tells them it is God’s land and they can have great success if they keep moving forward.

That’s my attitude as well. Some of you reading this have been following the ministry since its inception. Others are new to the newsletter. I’m incredibly excited not only to celebrate thirty years of ministry but, more importantly, to see what the Lord is going to do this year. It’s the growth of His kingdom that interests me the most, and while marking the faithfulness of God through the trials and challenges of the past is important, continuing to be faithful to His call is even more important. I simply cannot wait to see what God does next and how His faithfulness will be shown.

MINISTRY UPDATE

One of the areas I truly enjoy is the in-person time I get to meet and interact with Christians at various speaking events as well as our Dare to Defend conferences. I’m discussing possibly three conferences this year at different venues and covet your prayers for these. It would be so exciting to bring top-tier Christian speakers to audiences across different parts of the country. Do you know of a church in your area that may be able to host one of these events? Get in touch! And if you want to experience what a D2D conference is like, you can buy access to stream any of the prior events. See https://www.comereason.org/daretodefend/ for a list of speakers and topics.

HELP ME HELP YOU!

Do you have a winter event coming up at your church, or would you like your group to hear more about how to better understand the times and share their faith? Now’s the time to reach out! I have several openings for winter months, and I’d love to come out and talk to your congregation or group, large or small! Get in touch (just reply to this email), and I can even supply you with ideas and some of the most popular talks I’ve given. I’d love to add you to our schedule!

FINANCIAL UPDATE

First, I want to thank all my supporters so much for standing with me these past decades. (Decades? shudder I’m old!) Without you, this ministry simply could not exist. I’m basically a missionary, seeking to evangelize those who are neighbors, family, co-workers—people with whom we associate daily and who are desperately held captive by the lies of the enemy and this world’s deceptions. But as I seek to reach them, I need other faithful friends who are willing to stand together with me in those efforts. It is an unfortunate truth that as the costs of ministry keep rising, the need for more support rises as well. Last year we had a slight budget shortfall. I want not only to meet our budget this year but also to be able to grow the ministry without worrying about how to pay for it. Your gift, no matter the size, can help this ministry move forward. Just visit https://www.comereason.org/support/ to make a New Year’s gift today.

In an upcoming newsletter, I will let you know more about how we will mark this thirtieth anniversary of ministry. Until then, please feel free to write and let me know how I can pray for you!

Blessings,
Lenny

The Gospel That Toppled Empires (and Confronts Culture Today)

The book of Romans wasn’t written in a vacuum—it was delivered into the heart of a divided, hostile empire. Long before Rome persecuted Christians, Paul sent a letter that would redefine faith, grace, politics, and morality. In this episode, we explore Romans 1:1–7, the explosive power of the gospel, and why its message still confronts cultural chaos, identity politics, and moral confusion today. From Nero to now, Romans refuses to be tamed.

Watch ➤

Is James Gunn’s Superman Still a Moral Hero?

Superman has always stood for more than power. He’s represented restraint, sacrifice, and a vision of the good. But in a culture that no longer agrees on moral truth, even our heroes are being redefined. In this episode, we’ll compare James Gunn’s new iteration of Superman with earlier portrayals, uncover the philosophy shaping modern storytelling, and explore what all of this means for people of faith engaging culture today.

Watch ➤

Why Everyone Loves Christmas (Even Atheists) — The Power They Can’t Escape

While Christmas may have been co-opted and commercialized, since the roots of its modern incarnation, the core of the holiday and those celebratory aspects lie in the Gospel story. There’s simply no escaping the wonder of Emmauel: God with Us. As Christians we don’t have to shun the trappings of 21st century Christmas, but we must emphasize the transformative nature of the nativity and leverage it to transform ourselves, our communities, and our world.

Watch ➤

Is There More Than One Genesis Account of Creation?

In studying creation accounts, many skeptics will claim that The Bible holds two different creations accounts - the six days of Genesis 1 and a different version in Genesis 2. Are these accounts contradictory?

Read More ➤

Yes, Jesus Existed! Even Romans Outside the Bible Wrote About Him

Are the Bible writers unreliable when it comes to Jesus's lie and ministry? For the "Jesus is a Myth" types, they like to charge that Jesus never really did exist. They tell he was made up by those in the early church to gain adherents. Yet, even Jesus's enemies mention him in their writings.

Read more ➤

Upcoming Speaking Events:

The Responsibility of Service
January 18, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

So Close and Yet So Far
February 22, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

Seeing is Believing
March 1, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

SUPPORT COME REASON

Gen Z are leading a faith renewal!

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 21:37:00 +0000

Home

Donate

Contact

December 2025

Hi [[data:firstname:"All"]],

Merry Christmas!

Have you ever noticed some people can be difficult to buy for? Choosing gifts has always been a mixed bag, but let me suggest one you may not have thought about for those young adults in your life. How about a new Bible? Don’t scoff! The Los Angeles Times recently reported that “Bible sales were up 11% this year over 2024, part of a continuing boom in Bible sales. That includes 2.4 million sold in September as part of a surge that coincided with the death of conservative Christian activist Charlie Kirk.”¹ But it isn’t only the “Kirk effect.” Bible sales have been growing steadily since 2021.

And it isn’t only Bibles that are seeing a resurgence. Barna reports young people are leading the way in a return to church attendance, too. “Millennials and Gen Z Christians are attending church more frequently than before and much more often than are older generations. The typical Gen Z churchgoer now attends 1.9 weekends per month, while Millennial churchgoers average 1.8 times—a steady upward shift since the lows seen during the pandemic” (emphasis mine).² Further, the Religious News Service notes how Christian clubs on college campuses are booming, too.³ What’s going on?

Many believe that Generation Z—teens and young adults born before 2012—are looking for true connection and meaning. COVID and Zoom schooling left them disillusioned with only virtual interactions, and they are seeking big ideas and real relationships with people. I’ve been seeing this in my own ministry as our different social channels are gaining attention, especially when I address fundamental issues such as clips about the Bible, God’s existence, atheism, and the value of family and children. Gen Z is hungry for real answers to an otherwise artificial social life.

Yet, we cannot call it a full-scale revival, as another trend we’re seeing—and this one more alarming—is that college-educated Gen Z women are now the ones leaving the faith the fastest.4 While young men are more and more attracted to the faith, young women, specifically those who are educated through the secular university, are becoming non-affiliated. Sociologist Ryan Burge believes that what’s happening is those who are claiming Christianity are becoming deeply committed, strong Christians, while those who in the past had taken on the name of Christian because they were raised in a particular denomination are disavowing themselves of that label. In other words, the lukewarm are disappearing.

Still, I want to give those who are running towards Christ the best opportunity to grab hold with both hands, and that means reaching them not only in their hearts, but in their minds as well. You can help, too! Check out our first story below and see why this point in history is a real Christian Turning Point and how your support can make a huge difference in their lives.

MINISTRY UPDATE

As noted above, there has been a lot of engagement and discussion on the various social platforms. I engage with both believers and non-believers on TikTok, X, and Instagram, but it is on YouTube where most of the interactions occur. Right now, I publish two short clips every day as well as our weekly long-form podcast. These are also spread over the socials. Please be sure to subscribe, comment, and like the videos, as that helps them become even more visible.

I’m working on plans for our Dare to Defend Conferences for 2026, and it looks like there may be more than one as we are looking at different locations across the nation. Want a conference near your town? Reply to this email and get in touch! Want to see what the D2D conference is like? You can purchase prior years and stream them! See https://www.comereason.org/daretodefend/ for a list.

Again, don’t forget the launch of our new online curriculum entitled “Uncovering the Hidden Riches of Christian History.” I’m very excited about this project. It looks good and the content is really top-notch! It’s also a pretty unique approach to online learning. I wanted to create something that would be easy enough for a casual believer who wants to know more about Christianity’s development and influence upon our world while still being able to scale up to a rigorous, challenging study of theology, worldview, and history for homeschoolers. It can also serve as a great small group plan for Bible studies. Check out the intro video and outline at the website to hear more. You can also take class #1 for free!

HAVE ME COME AND SPEAK AT YOUR EVENT!

Do you have a winter event coming up at your church or would you like your group to hear more about how to better understand the times and share their faith? Now’s the time to reach out! I have several openings for fall and winter months, and I’d love to come out and talk to your congregation or group, large or small! Get in touch (just reply to this email) and I can even supply you with ideas and some of the most popular talks I’ve given. I’d love to add you to our schedule!

FINANCIAL UPDATE

It’s the end of the year, and now is the time when I look to my supporters to help judge how much I will be able to accomplish next year. I really do appreciate those who give to help this ministry reach so many, such as those Gen Zers who are searching for truth. Please consider providing an end-of-year gift at https://www.comereason.org/turningpoint, and if the Lord leads, perhaps even become one of the Defenders, those partnering with me on a monthly basis.

Perhaps you can pick up some Come Reason merch at our online store, too.

And as always, I covet your prayers. Please let me know how I can pray for you, too!

Blessings,
Lenny

Act While This Time Is Unique

Our culture is shifting. Young people want to find stability in faith and Come Reason Ministries is meeting that moment head-on with truth, clarity, and the hope of the Gospel. We’re already seeing incredible results: more young people are engaging with our content, asking deep questions, and discovering the solid reasons behind the Christian faith. But this turning point won’t last forever. Watch this video and find out how you can make a difference in our Christian Turning Point!

Watch ➤

The Numbers Don’t Lie: The Fine Tuning That Destroyed His Atheism

What happens when an atheist digs into the science behind the universe? For filmmaker Michael Ray Lewis, exploring cosmology, DNA information, and the staggering improbability of life led him on a three-year journey he never expected—one that ended with his new documentary Universe Designed. In this interview Lenny sits down with Michael to talk about how fine-tuning evidence shook his atheism, why cosmology, physics, and DNA point to an intelligent Creator and how 36 hours of interviews with Hugh Ross, Stephen Meyer, Frank Turek, J. Warner Wallace, Sean McDowell, Mary Jo Sharp, and Mike Licona formed the backbone of his new film.

Watch ➤

Contradictions in the Bible? Watch These Myths Collapse in Minutes

Are there contradictions in the Bible? Critics confidently claim "the Bible is full of errors," and many Christians feel anxious when challenged. But here Lenny takes those challenges head-on — and shows why most so-called contradictions collapse the moment you understand context, language, and logic.

Watch ➤

Pilgrim in the Algorithm: How Digital Echo Chambers Poison Your Faith

In a world where every scroll shapes our soul, what does it mean to live a godly life in the Age of the Algorithm? Drawing from Romans 16:17–27 and John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, this talk explores how today’s digital landscape—echo chambers, provocateurs, tribal identity, politicized faith, and endless distraction—creates modern versions of Bunyan’s "Poisonous People."

Watch ➤

How to Quickly Debunk the Jesus-Horus Myth

it's Christmastime and that means that atheists will begin trotting out the supposed parallels between Jesus and the Greek myth of Horus. The Horus-Jesus connection myth has much of what makes an urban legend appealing. Yet, all you need to do is to think a bit and the paper-thin claims of Jesus's stolen resurrection will quickly melt away. Here are five points to consider.

Read more ➤

Three Essential Gifts for Christmas

In order to properly celebrate Christmas, there are three specific gifts that one must have. These have always been given since the very first Christmas and the wisest among men will continue to offer them, not only in this season, but all year long.

Read more ➤

Upcoming Speaking Events:

The Power of Christmas
December 28, 2025
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

Jesus's Favorite Book
January 4, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

The Responsibility of Service
January 28, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

So Close and Yet So Far
February 22, 2026
The Church Family Fellowship
4130 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504
Details ➤

SUPPORT COME REASON

References

Smietana, Bob. “Bible Sales Keep Growing, Even as Many Americans Lose Their Religion.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 27 Nov. 2025, www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-11-27/bible-sales-keep-growing-even-as-many-americans-lose-their-religion.
“New Barna Data: Young Adults Lead a Resurgence in Church Attendance.” Barna, Barna Group, 14 Oct. 2025, www.barna.com/research/young-adults-lead-resurgence-in-church-attendance/.
Post, Kathryn. “Is There Religious Revival among Gen Z?” RNS, Religion News Service, 21 Oct. 2025, religionnews.com/2025/10/21/is-there-religious-revival-among-gen-z/.
“Gen Z Women Struggle with Christian Faith and Community.” Barna, Barna Group, 15 Oct. 2025, www.barna.com/trends/gen-z-women-struggling-in-faith/.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus: Does Firstborn Mean Created?

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 16 Oct 2025 19:05:00 +0000

One of the most popular video podcasts I’ve published on YouTube was a live discussion I had with two Jehovah’s Witnesses who visited me at my home. It attracted a lot of views from Christians, JWs and ex-JWs, many of whom were very grateful for an inside look at both the conversation and how I approached my interaction. Here are a couple:

@b-radz: Great job on this conversation. As a born in JW (currently leaving) I appreciate how you keep him talking and reasoning. Seeds were planted. He will come back to it if the Holy Spirit acts in his life. Good job.

@Silver_Sun5: Thank you for this. As someone who came out of the JW religion and discovered the true God, I really appreciate your apologetics in this discussion. Also, that deep dive into John 1:3 blew my mind, I love it!

@FreedomAndJustice4All: Masterful use of questions; just as Jesus did. Awesome

@unrecuerdo4674: This was great! I was raised in a Jehovah’s Witness family but was never baptized or a pioneer. As a shy young girl, I often felt isolated and uncomfortable, especially after meetings. I would go straight to the car and wait for my parents. My father was an elder, which added to the pressure. As a teenager, it was even harder. Because I hadn’t been baptized or actively pioneered—and because it seemed they valued works more than faith—I wasn’t invited to many youth events, which were already few and far between. This further deepened my sense of exclusion. Now, at 60, I’ve been watching Christian testimonies, particularly those of Muslims who converted to Christianity. Their stories have deeply moved me. I’ve struggled with the concept of the Trinity and even found it difficult to say that Jesus, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit are one. Despite not being fully committed to the Jehovah’s Witness faith, those beliefs were ingrained in me. I acknowledge that I am lukewarm in my faith. Please pray for me—that I may truly follow Jesus and embrace His teachings wholeheartedly

Of course, those who are still faithful to the Watchtower dismissed my arguments and offered some of the standard objections as to why Jesus is the second person of the Trinity: the Eternal God. One common point that was brought up in the comments more than once was Colossians 1:15, which states Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. This sounds like Jesus, being firstborn, means he was created first. But that understanding is wrong, as both the meaning of the Greek word AND the context of the passage displays. First, let’s look at the context, reading all of Colossians 1:15-17:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For everything was created by him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and by him all things hold together.

We can see here that like John 1:3, Colossians 17 doesn’t allow for Jesus to be a created being. If “all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and by him all things hold together,” it means that he pre-existed any created thing. This means he is non-created, e.g. eternal!

Secondly, the word for firstborn, prototokos, isn’t one that must imply creation. In fact, it means first in rank. The confusion comes in because the idea of the first in rank and the first male child were almost synonymous in the ancient Near East. We see the same issue with the famous prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 where a virgin will conceive. The word for virgin is the same word you would use for any young girl, because they would be expected to be synonymous. Does that mean there were never exceptions? Of course not! And there are also exceptions to the prototokos concept as well.

This doesn’t stop JWs from continuing to push their errant meaning. Here is one exchange below along with my reply:

@jimjuri6490: If Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation, how could God work through Jesus to create Jesus? Obviously Jesus is a direct creation of God (See John 3:16). Thereafter, everything else was created BY GOD working THROUGH His Firstborn SON. Not sure what working THROUGH means? Here is an example. Acts 19:11 And God kept performing extraordinary powerful works THROUGH the hands of Paul, Similarly with Jesus. Acts 2:22.

@comereason: You don’t understand what that Greek word means.

@jimjuri6490: Please! That ruse will never work. If only Greek speakers can understand the Bible, then why have translations? 'None of the wicked will understand' promises God in Daniel 12:10. That is why people think they can take on JWs using the Bible but make a mess of it. Isaiah 54:17 No weapon formed against you will have any success, And you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the SERVANTS OF JEHOVAH, If a simple Bible question is asked of you, will you be willing to answer it?

@comereason: {{{sigh}}} Must I go through this again? The word prototokos (πρωτότοκος) while it can be literally broken down to "first" (protos) and "bring forth" (tiktos) and is used to describe the first-born son of a family, holds the primary idea of one who is pre-eminent or primary. This is because the first-born son would be the next king, inherit the double portion, etc. It doesn't NEED to mean actual first at birth, as in the OT Greek version, the rabbis used prototokos in Genesis 25:33 when referring to Jacob - who was second to be born after Esau! In Revelation 1:5, Jesus is called "the prototokos from the dead." Now, unless you want to make this word mean Jesus was born from a dead woman, it obviously has a different idea. All Greek scholars agree with this point - lookup the word in Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament as a primary source.

As to whether Jesus claimed to be God, he did. See Revelation 22:12 where Jesus claims the very names and descriptions of the Father: "Look, I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to repay each person according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." In order to dispel any ambiguity, he adds just two sentences later "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to attest these things to you for the churches." In Revelation 1:8&mndash;same book mind you—it is God who is using those names. In fact, the NWT reads specifically "I am the Alpha and the Omega" says Jehovah God, "the one who is and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty." Who is coming? Rev 1:8 and Rev 22:13 says the Alpha and the Omega. Who is coming? Revelation 1:8 NWT reads Jehovah and Rev. 22:16 read Jesus. John ends the book with "Amen! Come quickly Lord Jesus." Who is coming? God. There cannot be two Alphas and Omegas. There cannot be two beginnings and ends. These are exclusive to God, just like creation. No ruse here. You haven't done your homework.

Secularists Shun Life: Anti-Natalist Excuses for Not Having Babies

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 18 Sep 2025 20:18:00 +0000

I’ve posted several full-length videos and many more video shorts on the very dangerous threat of our baby bust. As societies across the globe have become more affluent and more secular, they also have become less willing to have children. Though the rise in affluence makes having and raising kids easier, younger generations are choosing to forego the responsibility of parenthood.

As I’ve interacted with many of these folks in the comments section, several trends became apparent. First, it is clear that the primary excuse young people today lean upon for not wanting to have children is that the world is a terrible place to live. One commenter, @JayLucaa, provides a typical example:

@JayLucaa: The problem is that it's already too late. As a Gen Z man from my perspective, with how much we have been screwed by the older generations, I and most of my friends don't even dare dream to ever buy our own homes. Most of us anticipate becoming homeless if we ever make a single mistake... why on earth would I ever want to bring a child into such a situation? Sure more working age people makes things better, but with how much worse the world has been getting for young people, with how generation on generation young people have gotten poorer and poorer, I would rather suffer myself into my older years than bring an innocent child into this situation.

My reply was short and to the point:

@comereason: You really think you're poorer that the generation coming of age in the Depression? In the Dust Bowl? You really think fighting in the Civil War was better than now? How about bubonic plague?

Over and over, I heard these kinds of excuses. It seems that young adults today are so dedicated to blaming their struggles ion the fact that they have been somehow victimized, that this is their default reaction.

@Helga7850 wrote:

@Helga7850: INDEED. The Capitalists get richer and richer exploiting young generations. DISGUSTING.”

And here’s @douglasbullet6456 with a similar claim, followed by my response.

@douglasbullet6456: I don't want my kids being corporate slaves and debt slaves.

@comereason: I think you're making excuses. Tell me in what other time was it better to rear children? When there were 12-hour work days and poor houses? When there was no social safety nets? When work didn't mean punching keys on a keyboard but swinging a pick axe or picking cotton by hand?

@Dragumix and @AnonymousWon-uu5yn sought to argue that bringing new life into the world is not unadvised, but objectively immoral:

@Dragumix: Isn't it selfish of a society to bring new children into this world without their consent so that these new children can help society, especially the elderly? Who brought us into this ponzi scheme of life? The generations that don't exist yet? No, they didn't do this cruel act. Our parent generations did it

@comereason: No, it’s natural. What’s evil is trying to classify one of the most basic aspects of life and the thing that makes us more human as a Ponzi scheme. Human beings are not net negatives.

@AnonymousWon-uu5yn: To force someone into an existence that they might absolutely not want to exist in is immoral.

@comereason: This isn't true at all, and it makes no sense to say one can be "forced" into existence, let alone that a nonexistent being can wish to never exist.

@AnonymousWon-uu5yn: Your parents forced you into existence, you didnt have the ability to not come into existence.

The incredible error in thinking here is that any kind of will can exist prior to the person possessing that will. @tvk380mtg9 tried a bit more subtle approach, but still failed in the attempt:

@tvk380mtg9: Why bring children into a world where they’ll inevitably become aware of their own existence, and the certainty of death? Why not spare them from that fate? Just because your so-called demi-god commands it?

@comereason: Because it is better for people if they learn that they themselves aren’t the center of the universe. I think those shunning children like being selfish and all this cloaking talk about the possibility of death is simply them trying to justify avoiding responsibility.

@tvk380mtg9: Not having children isn’t selfish, it’s simply choosing a different way of living.

@tvk380mtg9: In fact, it can be less selfish than having kids.

@tvk380mtg9: Raising children often comes with an assumption that they will give meaning, care, or legacy to the parent’s life, which is in itself a self-centered motivation.

@tvk380mtg9: Bringing a new person into the world without their consent also comes with irreversible consequences, they inherit the risks of suffering, environmental instability, and the burdens of existence.

@tvk380mtg9: Choosing not to have children can actually be an act of responsibility: it avoids adding to overpopulation, reduces strain on resources, and respects the fact that no one is “owed” offspring.

@tvk380mtg9: If anything, insisting on having children because “that’s what people do” or to fulfill personal desires is more selfish, since it prioritizes the parent’s wants over the well-being and autonomy of a future person who never asked to exist.

@tvk380mtg9: Also I understand that you can’t consent before you exist, that’s exactly the point.

@tvk380mtg9: If you’d like to learn more about antinatalism, I recommend reading David Benatar’s work. He explains in depth why choosing not to have children isn’t a selfish decision.

@comereason: Benatar begs the question.

@comereason: Is there such a thing as human flourishing? What's required for that? Or is every decision weighed solely upon the individual and his or her perceptions? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You all think it is YOU that is the center of the world. Saying "Raising children often comes with an assumption that they will give meaning, care, or legacy to the parent’s life, which is in itself a self-centered motivation." That may be a motivation but it isn't a selfish one any more than serving at a homeless shelter or volunteering to visit people at the retirement home is. These acts provide meaning because they are INTRINSICALLY meaningful. To deny such acts is to limit or undermine human flourishing.

@tvk380mtg9: It's more the act of creating someone is a selfish one.

@comereason: NO. It is an intrinsic good. It is a good thing in and of itself. People hold intrinsic worth, which is why things like slavery are wrong. Every baby is a blessing. If people don’t have intrinsic worth, then by what objective standard are they worth anything at all?

@tvk380mtg9: I think the problem with appealing to “intrinsic worth” is that it isn’t actually observable or measurable, it’s more of a metaphysical assumption than something we can point to in reality.

@tvk380mtg9: When we say slavery is wrong, we don’t need to appeal to some hidden property of “intrinsic value”; we can explain it in terms of real harms, suffering, autonomy, and fairness.

@tvk380mtg9: People have worth because of their capacities, to think, to feel, to suffer, to flourish, not because of an abstract essence. A baby isn’t valuable in a vacuum, but because of the relationships, care, and potential surrounding them.

@tvk380mtg9: In fact, saying “every baby is a blessing” overlooks tragic realities where children are born into circumstances of immense suffering.

@tvk380mtg9: If worth is grounded in actual experiences and relationships, then we can have an objective standard rooted in human well-being, not an undefined metaphysical property.

Of course, defining someone as human is itself an "undefined metaphysical property," one that slaveholders and the Third Reich were more than happy to adjust so they could abuse their targets.

What is striking is just how short-sighted all of these exchanges are. as I wrote to another commenter, it is as if these people believe the world began only fifteen minutes ago and whatever difficulties they've had to deal with are somehow the worst in human history! Never mind that they are complaining while sipping a $7 latte while using high speed internet to browse social media with all the free time they have because they no longer need to spend three days tracking some wild animal so that maybe the tribe can eat for a couple of days.

One last observation about these exchanges. It was fascinating and enlightening to see just how many of those who are so vociferously in the anti-natalist camp are also atheists or agnostics. Social scientists and experts have been noticing the trend of cratering birthrates across the globe, meaning this isn’t just a US or even a western phenomenon. In fact. South Korea has birthrates so far below replacement levels that an ethnic Koreans are going extinct!

The scientists are struggling to explain the trend, as simply claims like the rise of the internet or the depression levels in the country don’t fit. But I think it is another consequence of secularism. When humanity believes that they themselves are the ultimate end, it should be unsurprising that 1) they want to have as much fun as they can and stay untethered to the responsibility of rearing children and 2) they believe there is no intrinsic value outside themselves anyway. No wonder depression rates are skyrocketing!

Nihilism is the natural end point of atheism. What hope is there without God to have his kingdom come, his will done on earth, and to deliver us from evil? Might as well just give up.

Christianity and Our Turning Point: What Charlie Kirk's Slaying Means for America

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Mon, 15 Sep 2025 06:10:00 +0000

This article is also available in both video and audio format. If you'd like to watch the talk, click here. For an audio version, click here.

The events of the past week have shaken our nation. Charlie Kirk was known for his on-campus debates, championing both conservative political concepts as well as his Christian faith. He was gunned down last week while simply asking people to discuss the issues with him. He was a young father and had so much of his life ahead of him until a bullet shot in hatred ripped him away from his wife and children. True evil.

And now that the assassin has been apprehended, and I'm not happy with that. I'm relieved, to be sure, but I'm not happy.

That's because the killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was basically turned in by his father. While it was the right thing to do, but here is another family that will be in anguish over the poisonous fruits of allowing sin to have its way.

As a Christian, I've been thinking a lot about the last week and I know that while there are many hot takes on the act and its aftermath, the only way I can make true sense of it all is by filtering through my Christianity. That's how it should be for every follower of Jesus, and really how it should be for those who uphold the values of Western society—because Western society only forms from Christian assumptions about the world. So I want to take some time here and delve into all of this. I think it's important to begin to clarify just what brought us to this point, understand what is happening now, and humbly offer some suggestions on how we can move forward in the best way possible, because our reaction to Kirk's slaying may prove to be vital to the survival of our culture.

The Points Upon Which History Turns

There are certain events in the course of history that can be pivotal for a nation. The shot at Lexington or Fort Sumter. Pearl Harbor. September 11, 2001, signaling a point in which America's assumed invulnerability crumbled along with the Twin Towers.

But not all pivotal events of history begin on such a large scale. Certainly, the capture of Los Angeles police beating Rodney King on video has reverberated through the last three decades. George Floyd and the BLM movements are simply downstream.

And now we have the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This may well prove to be another pivotal moment, for it lays bare the pestilence that has been seething beneath the skin of our culture. The symptoms of our malady were always noticeable: the continued divisions not simply of policies and ideas as those have always been true, but of our understanding of who each of us is and how we fit into this grand experiment of a united people.

First, it is clear that people today see themselves not as one nation formed from the joining of individuals, but as individuals who happen to inhabit a nation. We no longer gather socially, we separate so we can post on social media. We would react rather than reason. We would rather be outraged than reach out.

Such actions are not new in the human condition. In fact, they are the de facto position. Societies from the beginning of history have always held an us/them dichotomy. It was only the rise of Christianity, as scholars such as Larry Siedentop, Tom Holland, Rodney Stark and Charles Taylor have so well documented that changed the script. It is Christianity and Christianity alone that gifted the world with not just the idea that all human beings are equally valuable, but that one should defer one's own desires and seek the benefit of others.

But now, we live in a post-Christian society. We've lost the only stabilizing force powerful enough to keep civilization truly civil. As C.S. Lewis said “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”1 Like Nietzsche's madman, we don't realize the effect killing God would have on our interactions. But Kirk's slaying is a clear sign of just how much this infection is mutating our souls.

The Rise of Violence

That there has been a rise in political violence in our society is unarguable. School shootings, church burnings, riots in the streets all have risen in dramatic proportions. The number of domestic terrorist attacks and plots against government targets motivated by partisan political beliefs in the past five years is nearly triple the number of such incidents in the previous 25 years combined.2 Blaming weapons manufacturers for such violence is akin to blaming the corner bakery's display case for your weight problem.

No. Violence, especially political violence, doesn't escalate this quickly in a vacuum. Because we have abandoned community and adopted a radicalized understanding of individual autonomy, we have begun to see ourselves and our feelings as the most important. Colleges are filled with safe spaces to shelter from triggering speech. One may be questioned, detained (and even arrested in the UK and Canada) for words that make others feel uncomfortable. Charlie Kirk held open-air debates, allowing opposing views to speak, and he was labeled a Nazi for it.

As a people become drastically individualized, their moral values also become individualized, and decouple from any grounding higher than themselves. They begin to hold a very high view of their own position and their moral assuredness grows. They therefore adopt not simply a language of division but a viewpoint of moral superiority.

The Politically Faithful

To this point we have seen two things true in culture. First, because we've removed Christianity as the framework through which we interpret society, we've become a morally relativistic society with nothing to ground what is right and what is wrong outside of our own opinions. Yet, human beings are creatures that crave some kind of moral order. Beyond the fact that no culture could ever continue to exist under true anarchy, human beings are simply wired for moral order. We need to know how to classify acts as good or evil. But secondly, because we have splintered and fractured, we have tried to make politics the bastion for creating those identifiers. The result is that in the 21st century we're much more willing to weaponize political stances. And this shows in our political rhetoric.

Again, there has always been name-calling and caricaturing in politics, even at the beginning of this nation. In their contentious battle for the presidency in 1800, the campaign teams for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson got really nasty, accusing one of being a half-breed and the other of being a hermaphrodite! Yet, these two famously continued their correspondence and their friendship until their deaths. Such camaraderie is deeply conspicuous by its absence today.

The attempt to ground morality in politics becomes a fatal flaw and it has clearly affected all parts of the political spectrum. But it would be a mistake to believe that it affects all factions equally. This is because not all factions have their roots in the same ideals. This is why it becomes crucial to recognize the difference between the philosophies of our political divisions and the way they approach their desired outcomes.

Who Is Really the Enemy?

In politics we seem to simplify groups into the right and the left; the conservatives and the liberals. I understand why the media and the political parties do so—because it becomes easier to talk on broad over-simplifications and allows them to tar everyone who holds a different opinion with the same brush. The constant cries of “Fascist”, “Nazi”, “Ultra-right”, and “Christian Nationalist” has undoubtedly contributed to the climate where anyone like Tyler Robinson, who took those charges seriously, would follow those convictions with action. Would you feel it justified if you could to go back in time and kill Hitler while he was still a teen?

This friend-enemy distinction is one of the first signs of the secular cancer eating away at the soul of our nation. The theory, originally spelled out by Carl Schmitt, holds that everyone views others as either allies or adversaries based on their groups. These are not simply political stances, but they are deeper, more fundamental and pose an existential threat to your particular group. Certainly, given the rhetoric espoused by the Wokists and the Leftists that support them, the friend-enemy distinction has been running rampant throughout our culture. Ironically, Schmitt used his concept to further the Nazi program of the 1930s. It is a sad irony that his thoughts would be adopted by those who use them to so vociferously shout “Nazi” and “fascist” at others. Of course, Schmitt understood where this line of thinking would lead. He wrote in his book, The Concept of the Political: “The friend, enemy, and combat concepts receive their real meaning precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical killing.”3 Now we see just how right he was.

This is why the friend-enemy distinction should be rejected by Christians. This is completely antithetical to what Jesus taught. One cannot turn the other cheek, walk two miles instead of one, or pray for one's enemies of those are considered existentially threatening. It is precisely that our identities don't reside in ourselves but in our status as new creations in Christ that makes the difference, for nothing in this world can remove us from the Father's hand as Jesus promised in John 10:29. Paul reemphasizes this fact in Romans 8:38-39 when he wrote “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Political positions pose no existential threats because when one lives for Christ, even death is gain.

The Lack of Balance in Violence

Even though various political tribes exist, each with its own ideas on how to effect change, it would be naïve to believe that all are morally equal. The whataboutism that many progressives have offered as kind of a scapegoat in response to Kirk's killing is clearly disingenuous, especially when contrasted with the idea of conservatism, for conservatism by its nature revolves around conserving certain aspects of our culture. It champions things like the traditional family structure, existing societal structures, respect for authority, the value of the free exchange of ideas, and the understanding accumulated through centuries of human experience and growth. Charlie Kirk held to the ideals of “free enterprise, individual liberty, small government, freedom of expression, constitutional rights”4 and he said he was conservative because “people should be free to succeed and fail, keep their own stuff, make their own choices without government in the way.”5

He modeled conservatism by his approach of going to universities and seeking to inform people and perhaps change their minds through rational discourse the exchange of ideas. This is the traditional understanding of what should take place at a university. Keeping tradition, values, family, and community are hallmarks of classic conservatism and they are represented much more highly in conservative circles.

Progressivism, on the other hand, has at its core an idea that humanity needs to progress. It should not stay where it is. In fact, conserving societal structures is part of the problem for many progressives. In fact, the individuals who are the most influential in birthing, spreading, and championing the ideals of progressivism believe that it is the continued reliance on old models that is the thing that hinders humans reaching new levels of flourishing.

From its beginnings with Karl Marx, Lenin, and the Frankfurt School, through Derrida, Foucault, and Gramsci, to Che Guevara and Saul Alinsky, disruption is the way progress is made. Progressivism will therefore incorporate revolution, violence and anarchy as important tools in their models for progressing.

We see this increasingly throughout different facets of modern progressivism in the recent BLM movements, the call for equity, the drive to dismantle the patriarchy, the need to overthrow structures of systemic oppression, the breaking down of hegemony, and on and on. Old structures are assumed to be incurably corrupt and therefore cannot be reformed but must be replaced. The way replacement happens is through revolution of some type.

The fruit of the progressive disruption is on display everywhere, whether it be pro-Palestinian protestors blocking a freeway, climate activists defacing artwork, rioters looting a Wal-Mart, or the Democratic legislature and governor of California usurping the natural rights of parents so they may advance their transgender fetishes on children. On campus, progressive college students not only shout down opinions with which they disagree, they seek to remove speakers from being heard—by anyone ever. Is it so far a stretch, then, to think that a faction learning this lesson would extend it to doing so by a bullet instead?

Yes, violence exists across the political spectrum, but it is not a 50/50 problem. Violence in the service of progressive ideals is a feature, while violence in service of conservative activism should be considered a bug. If you doubt this summation, then look at a barometer happening in real time. See the macabre glee so many on the Left have not only claimed, but felt necessary to trumpet across their various social media channels. They cheer because a man who never held a political office was slain and would no longer be able to speak. They celebrate the death of a young human being working within the system to change minds through intellect and debate. Even in one of the surveillance videos showing the assassination, one may see a young man dancing as Kirk was lying on the floor, fighting for his life.

The Christian Model

As I said above, grouping people into only right and left is over-simplistic. It can also be calculated step to intentionally mislead. In thinking of a better way to address this issue, we must begin with the question of which model best characterizes what we should aspire to? What embodies the best ideals and promotes the greatest human flourishing?

I think the question is an easy one. If Christianity is the basis for western society, then all the major political philosophies offered today are may be traced back to it. Every one of them has their roots, one way or another, in Christianity but not all of them follow those Christian principles. Many bastardize the fundamentals so as to serve the desires of whomever is championing that latest cause. There is no escaping the impact the teachings of Jesus and his followers have had on western civilization. Marxism could never have developed from an Eastern or Islamic base. It is a heresy of Christianity, but it could only grow in Christian soil.

So, when I survey the landscape and look at the divergent political positions out there, I as a follower of Jesus am called to not be a conservative per se, although I believe many of the principles that Kirk voiced above are true and good for society. I am called to be a Christian. Let me emphasize this again. My goal isn't to be aligned with a particular political faction; it is to be aligned with the teaching and principles of Christianity that Jesus modeled and his apostles taught. Does that mean that I don't align myself with a conservative candidate? NO. This is partly because Christianity teaches virtues that stand in direct opposition to the idea of revolution. It shuns the concept of the slaying of a young father or gloating or celebrating his death because it advances one's tribe.

By that same token, because progressivism, Marxism, Wokism, and so much of Leftist ideology sits as both a heresy of Christianity and antithetical to its teachings, I can quickly and vigorously reject their adherents as more dangerous.

Does this also mean that I must only support or vote for Christian candidates who align with all my views? Such an objection is silly on its face. It doesn't follow that if we have two choices running for political office, neither holding all my Christian positions, that I should abstain from voting for the one who aligns more closely to my views if that candidate has a fair chance of winning. The political structure we currently inhabit forces a dichotomous choice upon us, so it is incumbent upon me morally to choose the one who will be closer to the ideal. We all know the famous trolley problem where one is faced with a situation where there is no good choice. That thought experiment shows that the moral thing to do is choose what will be less damaging and more advantageous. We should in our political decisions try to obtain the greatest good available given the real-world circumstances and likely outcome.

Where We Go From Here

Here are some specific points then I want to offer in the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder:

1. Understand our Primary Identity In Christ

This is paramount. Since we are living in a post-Christian world, it should be no surprise that neither party has a record of righteousness. I don't identify as a person belonging to a political party, but a believer belonging to Jesus. Far too many people today have allowed their politics to inform their Christianity instead of making their Christianity inform their politics.

2. Understand the Limitations of Our Political System

Though we are Christians we must still live in this world and our participation here is important. Churchill famously said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried." I think he's right. The United States was formed on the idea of liberty, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is because we live in a fallen world with sinful people who love power that we will be forced to work within this system and make the most of it. In fact, in Romans13, Paul clearly teaches that the government is an instrument of God to correct. If we understand that this government is ultimately accountable to us, the people, then not being informed and engaged in steering our nation towards a more righteous direction is actually an abdication of our calling by God.

3. Stand Up for Righteousness

Charlie Kirk's legacy was that he went to college campuses and used dialogue to try and change minds. That is a laudable goal and it becomes important for all Christians to in some way be prepared to stand up for those truths. Jesus put the responsibility to be salt and light upon all believers. I recently had a conversation with a woman who had asked whether all Christians were called to defend the truth. My response was that yes, we were, but not all in the same way. I then compared it to evangelizing. All Christians are commanded to evangelize, but not all Christian are called to be evangelists. That is a unique calling and gifting.

Similarly, not all Christians are called to be political activists, but all Christians are called to stand for the truth. There is righteousness in rejecting progressivism and the harms it causes. You can confront your child's teacher if she is spreading woke ideology. You can decry the evil of promoting celebrations in response to the slaying of Kirk. Otherwise, we allow sin to run unchecked, which will lead to even greater evils.

Stephen in Acts 6 and 7 stood boldly before the Sanhedrin and declared how they were wrong. Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple and He called out the Jewish leaders as whitewashed tombs. Identifying immorality is part of the Christian life.

4. Model ourselves after Jesus

a. Be prepared to suffer.

One of the messages we hear far too little of is the call for the suffering that the Christian message brings. Suffering is an unavoidable part of the victorious Christian life. Jesus talked about it throughout the Gospels. When speaking to his disciples before his death, Jesus warned them: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. (John15:18-20)

Suffering is simply a fact of life. I mourn the death of Charlie Kirk, but I also notice how much more powerful his message has become because he died giving it. The early Christians found this to be true so much that Tertullian told the Roman emperor persecuting them, “The more you mow us down, the more numerous we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”

b. Resist the impulse to demonize everyone

I get it. The pro-trans activists want to hurt our children. The pro-Hamas people are complicit in keeping the remaining hostages in captivity. There are many examples where the small faction of hard-left progressives are being sustained by a much larger group of others because they happen to not be on the right. It is tempting to simply group everyone on the left of you as wicked and want to punish them. But punishment shouldn't the motive driving us. Righteousness is.

You may say at this point, “Wait a minute, Lenny. Didn't you just say you should stand up for righteousness?” Yes, I did. But these two things are not mutually exclusive. Let's take the question of reporting those who posted celebratory videos of Charlie Kirk's death on social media. I think such actions are part of the acid eating away at our social fabric. Celebrating his killing robs Kirk of his humanity and devalues life. In past eras, bad actions would be mitigated by the fact that people were more community-minded. Everyone belonged to certain social groups and those groups would act as a restraint and a corrective to the individual. Today, because we are so hyper-individuated, those institutions no longer function in that way. So we are again forced to use a flawed means to try and remove that acid from our cultural body before it does more damage. And just as the “fame” of the first school shooters led to further shootings, these celebrations will certainly lead to further violence.

But that doesn't mean I want to get everybody who posted a critique of Kirk. Again, there is a difference between wanting revenge and wanting to remove a cancer.

Here's a biblical example. There was no greater act of political evil that the Sanhedrin capturing and executing Jesus because they were worried about keeping their power. Here was the perfect man, sinless, who was executed for political expediency. If anyone had the right to respond with violence, it was Jesus and his followers. However, we read the opposite happened. When Malchus, the servant of the High Priest, went to take Jesus by force, one of Jesus's disciples drew his sword and sliced off his ear. What did Jesus do? He said No more of this!” And Jesus Healed Malchus's ear.

Don't demonize absolutely everyone who aligns with the progressives. There are so many people who simply have been fed false ideas and they drank the Kool-Aid. They believed the lies. Some have never exposed themselves to alternate explanations.

I've many times gone on college campuses and done open-air forums or taken young people on campus to talk one-on-one with students at institutions such as UC Berkeley. And we've gotten into some very good conversations. They've heard things they had never heard before. But that chance goes away as soon as you begin grouping people into an us-them dichotomy. That friend-enemy distinction is unchristian and while we can naturally fall into it. We must resist so doing. Jesus healed Machus's ear. Whose hearts could God heal if we give him a chance?

5. Seek Civilization rather than catharsis

Lastly, we should resist the “gotchas” because it will ultimately undermine the very civilization we are trying to preserve. Let me quote from James Lindsay, whose prescient article makers the point well:

We have a choice: catharsis or civilization.

There's no other choice for us. We can have a civilization, where people are civilized enough to live, work, and trade with one another in a productive way, a safe way, a trustworthy enough way, or we can abandon it for the pursuit of letting the negative emotions of the past years, decade, or decades consume us.

There's no other choice.
If we choose catharsis, we let our emotions, our Pathos, get the better of us. We turn to our anger and look to give it more justifications. We turn to our frustration and seek an orgiastic release through whatever deeds vents it. We turn to our oppression, our rage, our despair, our fear, and we let it flow through us until the Pathos pours out and covers the land in what will eventually be fire and blood.

Catharsis is tempting, and stepping into it will be libidinous, orgiastic, elevating, and divine, until we realize that it's the feast of demons upon everything we could have built and everything we could have passed on to our children and our posterity.

Civilization is harder. It's bitter, in fact, in comparison to catharsis. It means swallowing hard and taking all those negative emotions and sublimating them into something productive, something that builds rather than makes us feel better. Civilization feels like injustice, in fact, even though it is the only basis for justice outside of Heaven and Hell.6

I pray for Charlie's family. I pray for Tyler and his family. I pray for our nation. And I pray that I can be someone who walks as Jesus would in trying times such as these. Do you agree or disagree? Is there something I missed? What other thoughts do you have? Et me know down in the comments section and I pray that you and your family will stay safe and be blessed in the coming days. We aren't at the end of this. We are just at the beginning. We therefore have an opportunity to use this point upon which history turns to point others to Jesus. That will be the true victory.

References

1. C. S. Lewis. “The Abolition of Man.” The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, Calif, 2002, 704.

2. Riley McCabe. “The Rising Threat of Anti-Government Domestic Terrorism: What the Data Tells Us.” CSIS Briefs. Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 2024. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-10/241021_McCabe_Domestic_Threat.pdf?VersionId=ObHnpUhl9GVwsySvI.iBzZud4mUOjBqY

3. Carl Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. United Kingdom, University of Chicago Press, 1996. 33.

4. https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/752359027141513216

5. https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/752357884441219073

6. James Lindsay. “Catharsis or Civilization: A Statement from Our Founder on the Life of Charlie Kirk.” New Discourses, 11 Sept. 2025, https://www.newdiscourses.com/2025/09/catharsis-or-civilization-a-statement-from-our-founder-on-the-life-of-charlie-kirk/.

Abusing "To Kill a Mockingbird" to Push Bigotry

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 19 Jan 2023 22:19:00 +0000

Bigotry is wrong. It shouldn't be tolerated. Such a message isn't questioned. In fact, our current culture seems nearly obsessed in proclaiming its evils. That's why I was dumbstruck at the recent stage adaptation of Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird. What do we do when a time-honored work of fiction is used by modern interpreters to teach and reinforce bigotry the original work was designed to denounce?

To Kill a Mockingbird, both the original work and the Academy Award winning film starring Gregory Peck, tells the story of Atticus Finch defending a wrongfully accused black man (Tom Robinson) of rape charges in the racist 1930s South. Told through the eyes of Atticus's daughter Scout, we see how labeling people and casting judgment on those different from ourselves is wrong.

Aaron Sorkin has adapted the story for the stage, and as with any work, it was necessary to make some changes. (Sorkin's best known for writing films like A Few Good Men and The West Wing television series.) For example, early in the book after Scout's brother Jem had received an air rifle for Christmas, Atticus famously admonishes Jem to be careful with his new power:1

"I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.

"Your father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

Sorkin moves the dialogue to Atticus's closing statement and places the conversation as a recollection of a gift he received from his own father. The change isn't a big deal as the message remains the same: prejudging someone based on his group is not only wrong, but evil.

However, race isn't the only avenue in which bigotry may assert itself, which is why I was shocked when Sorokin places a vicious attack in the mouth of one of the story's sympathetic characters. Dolphus Raymond, a white land owner who in the book associates with the black community more than with the town's bigots, tries to console the children about the wrongs they're seeing play out before their eyes. He notes that children cry when they recognize the horror of the world:

“Cry about the simple hell people give other people—without even thinking. Cry about the hell white people give colored folks, without even stopping to think they they're people, too.”2

Sorkin decides that this isn't enough. He has the children ask him why they couldn't before see that horror in their midst, and Raymond replies “When horror comes to supper, it comes dressed exactly like a Christian.” The line is delivered with dramatic flair and at least three quarters of the audience reacted as Sorkin hoped they would: with knowing guffaws and snide appreciation.

Imagine! Here we have an entire audience paying to watch what can only be described as an anti-bigotry story and they absolutely jump at the chance to revel in the bigotry of an anti-Christian line inserted into the show. This is a clear example of what I mean when I state we are now living in a post-Christian culture. You may not call someone horrific because of the color of his or her skin, but if there is a devout Christian, then go after them and giggle along the way!

Harper Lee felt differently. In a New York Times article she explained, “Surely it is plain to the simplest intelligence that ‘To Kill a Mockingbird' spells out in words of seldom more than two syllables a code of honor and conduct, Christian in its ethic, that is the heritage of all Southerners.”3

Perhaps Sorkin and those who attend his show agree that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird, but it seems that painting a target on the Christian dove is not only allowed but encouraged.

References

1. Harper Lee. To Kill a Mockingbird. HarperCollins, 1995. 103.
2. Lee, 229.
3. “Harper Lee Twits School Board in Virginia for Ban on Her Novel.” New York Times, 16 Jan. 1966, p. 82.

Rainbows, Revelation, and the Already and Not Yet

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:59:00 +0000

The midweek Bible study group at my church is completing their study on the book of Revelation and I was asked to provide a few thoughts on the last two chapters of this amazing portion of Scripture.

The rainbow has had quite a bit of visibility in our society. The bands of red at the top transitioning through six hues to a violet bottom reflect the order of the rainbow produced by refracting the sun’s natural light. Today, we see the rainbow adopted as a symbol, most prevalently in what has become known as the “Pride Flag.” Designed in 1978, the rainbow was chosen because it had some popularity in the ‘60s hippie culture but also because “the colors reflect the diversity of the LGBT community and the spectrum of human sexuality and gender.”1

Ironically, as other communities of grievance have appeared, people have felt the represented spectrum isn’t diverse enough, so color band have been added, lines have been multiplied, and triangles now appear so that it no longer reflects anything natural at all. It has become much more a symbol of politics than a reflection of natural order.

Of course, this isn’t the first time the rainbow has been used as a symbol. The Bible tells us that its role has been symbolic by its very design.

The First Recreation

In Genesis 6 we read that when God saw that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time, he destined the world to be destroyed. Yet, God preserved his faithful and allowed the earth to be recreated. Genesis 9:8-15:

“But you, be fruitful and multiply; spread out over the earth and multiply on it.”

Then God said to Noah and his sons with him, “Understand that I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you—birds, livestock, and all wildlife of the earth that are with you—all the animals of the earth that came out of the ark. I establish my covenant with you that never again will every creature be wiped out by floodwaters; there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth.”

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all future generations: I have placed my bow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I form clouds over the earth and the bow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all the living creatures: water will never again become a flood to destroy every creature. (CSB)

Tonight, we finish the book of Revelation, reading about the second recreation of God’s world. Did God break his promise? Oh no, for, like any good lawyer, the answer lies in the specifications of the contract. God destroys the earth the second time not by water, but by fire! Again, the motivation is to wipe out the infection of evil that people have carried throughout God’s creation. In Revelation 21:23 we are told the new world will no longer have the sun. So, here's the question: Will there be a rainbow in the New Heavens and the New Earth?

Living in the Already and Not Yet

For those of you who read last week, the answer should be an unqualified Yes. There will be a rainbow, but it will be of a different type. The foundations of the city shone with the twelve jewels, sparkling in vivid colors. (You see, the light of God cannot be divided so refraction cannot occur there.) God’s word endures even through the recreation as his promise is never to end.

The rainbow is just one example of a promise that we have already received, but one that has yet to be completely fulfilled. On Sunday, I mentioned this as living in the “Already and Not Yet.” We are already living in the Kingdom of God; it has come among us. But we are not yet delivered into its full hope and promise.

We see this kind of tension over and over again in Scripture: 2

Hebrews 2:8–9: “At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death”
1 John 3:2: “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Other aspects of the “already, but not yet”:3

Already adopted in Christ (Romans 8:15), but not yet adopted (Romans 8:23);
Already redeemed in Christ (Ephesians 1:7), but not yet redeemed (Ephesians 4:30);
Already sanctified in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2), but not yet sanctified (1 Thessalonians 5:23–24);
Already saved in Christ (Ephesians 2:8), but not yet saved (Romans 5:9);
Already raised with Christ (Ephesians 2:6), but not yet raised (1 Corinthians 15:52).

Living Our Lives as Part of The Already and Not Yet

Here’s the thing about Revelation and the end times—most Christians see it as this future event where Jesus will vindicate his church, defeat evil, and provide us with a blissful existence for eternity. But that’s what Saul of Tarsus believed as he headed out for Damascus, too. He waited for his messiah to vanquish Rome, to restore God’s people to their rightful place and to live as a good Jew should. Saul was wrong. The Messiah has already come and it was the light of the Lamb, striking him blind and knocking him down that actually opened his eyes and his heart to the deeper truth that Paul could have all of that right now. It is that revelation that allowed him to happily suffer and be imprisoned for the sake of the Gospel. The reality of God’s Kingdom was buried too deep in Paul’s heart for external difficulties to diffuse it. He saw it as one would see a rainbow: there is no hard lines between the colors. The simply flow one into the next naturally so that eventually you are at the other side.

We can have all the promises of heaven right now.

Can we dwell with God today? Yes!
Can we enjoy the blessings of righteousness today? Yes!
Can we have blessed fellowship with others of his kingdom? Yes!

As we wrap up this book, let’s not wait for God to do something before we respond. Let’s remember that through his church, we are vindicating Christ via good works. We are defeating evil becaue the gates of hell cannot prevail against us, we are granted eternal life right now in Jesus Christ. We are his body. Let us not waste a moment, but live with an eternal perspective seeing all the beautiful colors and hues God has placed before our lives.

References

1. “Rainbow Flag (LGBT).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Mar. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBT).
2. “What Is the Concept of ‘Already but Not Yet’?” GotQuestions.org, Got Questions Ministries, 29 May 2014, https://www.gotquestions.org/already-not-yet.html.
3. Briones, David. “Already, Not Yet: How to Live in the Last Days.” Desiring God, 31 Mar. 2022, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/already-not-yet.

Thinking About What Truly Makes Life Worth Living

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Mon, 04 Oct 2021 14:58:00 +0000

Last week, I had the blessing of escaping with my wife to the giant redwoods of northern California. We stayed right in the middle of the park and I was able to ride my bicycle through the Avenue of the Giants. It was an incredible experience, being dwarfed mile after mile by some of the oldest and tallest living things on earth.

These redwoods are a testament both to God’s creative power and to the beauty he weaves into his creation. Being there is breathtaking and humbling. I marveled at his good gift to us in the experience. It is one of those things that makes life worth living. Such a statement shouldn’t be shocking, as God’s grace has that effect.

One of the great things about such a getaway is it allows one to think about the important things of life and even life itself. For example, I began to ponder “just what is it that makes life meaningful?” What does it mean to say life has meaning? We may have a natural drive to survive, but so do most animals. Seeking meaning beyond our survival is something different. It’s seeking something higher.

The Human Drive for Meaning in Life

Such questions are nothing new. Humans have always desired to find meaning both individually and within their broader existence collectively. One way we do this is to seek out meaningful experiences. By that I don’t mean experiences that make one happy or feel good. Watching a funny television show, taking a ride on a roller coaster, or getting a new hairstyle can do that but it doesn’t mean these are meaningful. Alcohol and narcotics can also make you feel good.

No, meaningful experiences are those experiences that elevate an individual. They make him or her more in touch with unique qualities that in nature only humans hold. Experiencing the truly beautiful, like the beauty of the redwoods, is one example.

All people appreciate beauty. As I’ve written before, beauty is objective. By that I mean there is a standard of beauty that sits outside of ourselves. That’s because beauty finds its ultimate fulfillment in God Himself. It is what is known as one of the transcendentals. (The two other recognized transcendentals are truth and goodness—in the sense of justice and morality). Transcendentals, as the name implies, are fundamental to being human. They transcend subcategories and are foundational to understanding value as human beings. In other words, these are the core of living a meaningful life.

Transcendentals and Elevating Humanity

The transcendentals are fundamental because they represent the highest virtues for human experience. Just having a feel-good experience, as I noted above, doesn’t make an experience meaningful. Unfortunately, today there are an awful lot of people who confuse feeling good with living a good life. They think satisfying an appetite or urge is going to make them happy. But appetites and urges are simply base instincts. They are things we share with animals. Dogs like belly rubs; snakes bask in the sunlight. All creatures want to have full stomachs and seek sex whenever and wherever they may find it. Animals are motivated by instinct, but for humans to behave this way cultivates a form of selfishness. Being human is to differentiate ourselves from animals and act in a way that is distinct, to emphasize aspects of who we are that separates us from animals.

Seeking out experiences that are grounded in truth, goodness, and beauty help us make that distinction because recognizing these things is unique to humans. Animals don’t care about beauty at all. While a female peacock might be attracted to a male with the more spectacular display of tail feathers, she is operating on an instinctual attraction, not seeing the display for its own sake. Neither of the birds would stop to ponder a richly hued sunset or the towering redwoods. We, on the other hand, see beauty for what it is in itself.

Recognizing transcendentals may be understood as something we share with God. They are part of what it means to be made in His image. God is not simply the source of all that is good; goodness finds its perfection in him as God is love. God is truth and God is beautiful.

Modern Culture’s Missing Piece

As I thought about all this, one thing I’ve realized is our culture no longer seeks to cultivate and develop truth, goodness, and beauty. We assume them then seek out the more base pleasures instead. That’s what the eruption over the U.S. abortion laws are all about. People want to feed their base nature for casual sex, but don’t want to be dealing with the natural outcome of such encounters. Yet, isn’t this animalistic? Doesn’t such a drive for immediate physical gratification rob us of expressing our uniquely human understanding that sex is good and beautiful because it bonds two people together who have committed to safeguarding the well-being of each other and any progeny that may result from that act?

What do people believe in today’s society are the things that truly makes life worth living? I’m seeing more and more people seeking an answer to that question and they cannot seem to find it. I’m beginning a project where I explore the transcendentals as not only an answer to that question, but as a way of evangelism. God is attractive because in him we can find all beauty, goodness, and truth. If people are longing for these things, I want to bring them to the source.

I will explore this topic in more detail in upcoming posts. For now, I hope that you seek out experiences in life that strengthen the Good, the True, or the Beautiful. You may just find your life has become more meaningful as a result.

Is Easter Rooted in Paganism? A Rapid Response Video Series

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 01 Apr 2021 20:00:00 +0000

The Easter celebration is to mark the resurrection of Jesus, but some claim that it really is Christian repackaging of ancient pagan rituals. Do the bunnies and eggs prove Easter has pagan roots? What about all those fertility goddesses? In this Easter week rapid response video series, Lenny shows you just how to think through such outrageous claims without a lot of research, and how you can be smarter than Google.

Video 1 - The Rites of Srping

Video 2 - Ignoring Judaism

Video 3 - History's Documents

Video 4 - How to Be Smarter Than Google

Three Rapid Reflections on Saint Patrick's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:54:00 +0000

There are incredible hidden riches for us to glean today in the story of Patrick—a man who wasn't even Irish! Watch these three short videos as Lenny explains Patrick's mission, his method, and his model for reaching the seemingly unreachable.

I'll be releasing each of the three videos throughout the day today, so come back and watch them all!

Part 1 - Patrick's Mission

Part 2 - Patrick's Method

Part 3 - Patrick's Model

Christmas Greetings, BLM, and Engaging Others

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Fri, 18 Dec 2020 07:31:00 +0000

Does it bother you if a store clerk wishes you “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”? I guess it could depend on the context. If I was purchasing, say, Channukah candles then the clerk’s salutation would probably be seen as appropriate. However, what if it was just my Saturday grocery run? Should Merry Christmas be avoided because it could possibly cause offense to some people?

As our society has become less Christian and more politically correct, some argue there has been a push to wish everyone happy holidays as a safeguard against offending anyone. But I don’t see such a move as effective. Indeed, sometimes they have consequences opposing their intended effect.

Take for example the recent statement by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. After a video of President Trump wishing Georgia rally attendees a merry Christmas and encouraging the greeting’s use, Nessel took him to task on Twitter for the remark, writing:

I remember the first time I was at a store with my son and an employee said “Merry Christmas” to us. My son looked devastated as asked “Are we the only people who don’t celebrate Christmas?” I answered “No, and we are just as American as everyone else.” Glad @JoeBiden knows that.

Various conservative outlets jumped on the tweet, one that Nessel has since deleted. The Daily Wire lead with the headline “Michigan AG Slams People Wishing ‘Merry Christmas’ After Trump Warning.”1 Breitbart wrote “Michigan AG Dana Nessel Launches “2020’s War on ‘Christmas’.”2 It strikes most people that taking umbrage at another person wishing you Merry Christmas is silly. Her denouncing those who would draw upon a traditional greeting mentioning a Christian holiday celebrated by the vast majority of people in the country (be they Christians, atheists, and even some of other faiths) feels more than insensitive. It feels like an attack.

After deleting the original tweet, Nessel sought to justify her stance with this comment that is still available online:

Saying “Happy Holidays” this time of year does not denigrate Christianity. It simply acknowledges and respects the great diversity of our nation and includes each and everyone of us who call ourselves proud Americans.

Is this true? Her claim is worth investigating and thinking about this carefully can help shift through some of the more divisive rhetoric that’s been weaponized this year. It may even help Christians better their witnessing efforts.

The Ugliness of Sloganeering Salutations

While the Coronavirus pandemic may be the most top-of-mind crisis of 2020, the tensions over race and law enforcement are certainly in a close running. Part of the fallout from these events was the elevation of the slogan Black Lives Matter. Its originators, Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors saw the slogan as “A call to action, to make sure we are creating a world where black lives really do matter.”3 As the racial tensions and civic unrest elevated over this summer, the phrase morphed from a simply rally cry to a creed and a political movement. Some of the more radical activists began demanding people speak the phrase to show they are not racists. Garza and Cullors founded the Black Lies Matter Global Network Foundation and their web site began promoting far-left positions. She stated in a 2015 interview, “I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.”4

People, not surprisingly, reacted against the slogan. Some didn’t like the idea that they must signal their virtuosity by saying the phrase. Others didn’t want to identify themselves with the radical politics of the movement. Still others felt that the phrase didn’t tell the whole story. A counter-slogan of All Lives Matter began to crescendo in response to the ubiquity of Black Lives Matter.

That, in turn, caused a similar backlash. Blacks felt that such a phrase diminished the point they were trying to make. The common analogy they offer is to picture yourself at the doctor’s office after you smashed your finger with a hammer. When he asks “which finger should I treat?” you would never respond with “Oh, doc, ALL finger matter!” Of course they all do, but the one that’s hurting needs the attention now.

Good Housekeeping even ran an article stating that it’s problematic to say “All Lives Matter”:

While the intention of the phrase "All Lives Matter" may be to put everyone’s life on equal footing and convey a sense of unity, responding "All Lives Matter" to "Black Lives Matter" is actually more divisive than unifying. That's because it discounts and diminishes the focus on the violence and discrimination Black individuals face every day in this country.5

Switching from Slogans to Meaningful Conversation

This reaction to the reaction brings me back to my opening example. Let’s apply Nessel’s statement to the BLM slogan controversy. Without doing damage to her meaning, I can simply replace two terms and see if her argument is still appropriate:

Saying “All Lives Matter” this time of year does not denigrate black people. It simply acknowledges and respects the great diversity of our nation and includes each and everyone of us who call ourselves proud Americans.

Interestingly, there are a lot of people that would agree with Nessel’s original statement, but object to the revision and there are just as many on the other side of the political fence who would agree to the revision but reject the original! Yet, in both we have a group that offers a phrase of identity (either “Black Lives Matter” or “Merry Christmas”), a group that feels it has been in some way disparaged (Blacks or Christians), and a more encompassing category phrase (“Happy Holidays” or “All Lives Matter”) that becomes the substitute. If the logic is sound, it seems it should hold true in both sets of circumstances. So, an organization that instructs its employees not to say “Merry Christmas” but only “Happy Holidays” may be as offensive to Christians as hearing “all lives matter” as a retort to “Black Lives Matter.”

However, there is a caveat because the phrase Black Lives Matter is also the name of an organization that promotes values antithetical to Christian beliefs. If I were to use the phrase Black Lives Matter, would I also be giving undo credibility or endorsement to the organization’s political stance? Even if I mean to affirm the broad concept, how do I know that’s what those who hear or read my reply will not assume I accept those stances? In our social media/soundbite world, being misunderstood is too common place and sloganeering on either side can lead to a breakdown in communication instead of a path to meaningful conversation.

If someone askes me if I think black lives matter, I usually respond with “I’ll go further than that. There are a lot of things that matter. Money matters. I say black lives have inestimable worth.”

Therefore, let me offer this alternative. If someone askes me if I think black lives matter, I usually respond with “I’ll go further than that. There are a lot of things that matter. Money matters. I say black lives have inestimable worth.” In using this reply I can accomplish three things: 1) I can affirm the real pain those in the black community feel, 2) I can avoid any misunderstandings of tying myself to a political stance or movement, and 3) I can stimulate additional conversation. It allows me to talk about the imago Dei and why human beings carry intrinsic value. It opens the door to evangelism opportunities.

Similarly, don’t wait for a clerk to wish you happy holidays. When you fist step up to the counter, you can wish them a merry Christmas. You can also ask them “why do you think this particular holiday draws so much more attention than any other? What is so special about Christmas?” By moving beyond slogans, we can communicate better, be understood more clearly, and inspire others to think more deeply. That would make Christmas the happiest of holidays.

References

1. Hank Berrien. “Michigan AG Slams People Wishing 'Merry Christmas' After Trump Warning.” The Daily Wire, The Daily Wire, 7 Dec. 2020, www.dailywire.com/news/michigan-ag-slams-people-wishing-merry-christmas-after-trump-warning.
2. John Nolte. “Nolte: Michigan AG Dana Nessel Launches 2020's War on 'Christmas'.” Breitbart, Breitbart, 7 Dec. 2020, www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/nolte-michigan-ag-dana-nessel-launches-2020s-war-christmas/.
3. Elizabeth Day. “#BlackLivesMatter: the Birth of a New Civil Rights Movement.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 July 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/19/blacklivesmatter-birth-civil-rights-movement.
4. Jared Ball. “A Short History of Black Lives Matter.” The Real News Network, The Real News Network, 23 July 2015, https://therealnews.com/pcullors0722blacklives
5. Lizz Schumer. “Saying That ‘Black Lives Matter’ Doesn't Mean That Other Lives Do Not.” Good Housekeeping, Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., 5 June 2020, www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/a32745051/what-black-lives-matter-means /.

How COVID-19 Shows Utilitarianism's Big Flaw

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 14 May 2020 21:32:00 +0000

What grounds morality? We all talk about whether actions are right or wrong, but what is it that makes something right or wrong to begin with? Christianity has traditionally held that goodness or rightness have their origin in God and he has revealed that to us. Atheists, on the other hand, cannot ground moral values in God. Yet, most atheists will say that morality is real. They believe that there are certain duties and obligations to which we should all adhere, such as holding the value of life above economic loss.

So, how do they ground morality?

The question isn’t as abstract as it may at first seem. As the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent shutdown of the economy have thrown real questions of morality into public discussion, one can quickly see grounding morality in something other than God creates real problems in the real world.

One of the more popular ways attempted to ground morality apart from God is to hold to a moral framework known as utilitarianism. Birthed by early 19th century thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is an "ethical doctrine that an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."1 What that means is one can define right and wrong by whether the action will produce the greatest level of happiness for most people in a specific situation.

I want to be clear here. When utilitarians talk about the word "happiness" or "pleasure," they aren’t meaning some immediate, shallow feeling of fun. Certainly, it’s more fun for kids to eat cake rather than vegetables or go and play than go to school. However, utilitarians would know that such short-term pleasures would cause greater pain in the future when the child is grown, sickly, and unemployable. Still, utilitarianism holds that what we call good is what is pleasurable, and therefore, after one weighs all factors, whatever produces the most pleasure/happiness for the most people is by definition good.

COVID-19 and "Ageism"

At first glance, utilitarianism seems common-sensical. Advancing happiness while reducing pain is a grid against which we make decisions all the time. However, the devil is always in the details, and real-life situations can underscore utilitarianism’s fatal flaw.

A recent Los Angeles Times column by Steve Lopez is a case in point.

Lopez recently published a commentary entitled, "Time for seniors to roll over and die so younger generations can get back to work? Not so fast." It opens with this:

I’ve got a Medicare card in my wallet and a target on my back.

"Sacrifice the weak, reopen," said a protest sign in Tennessee.

In Antioch, next door to the Bay Area town I grew up in, a planning commissioner said that "the sick, the old, the injured," along with the homeless, should be left to die from COVID-19 and ease the burden on society.

Even the 70-year-old lieutenant governor of Texas offered himself up as a sacrificial lamb, saying if more people have to die to save the economy for future generations, "I’m all in."2

Lopez goes on to note that the argue that "ageism is running amok" and how he believes "those who are saying we have to choose between returning to work and saving lives — as if we can’t do both — are in a minority" even though he admits "a majority of victims [are] up there in years."

Wrong is Defined as Right

I’m sure most people would side with Lopez that just because someone is in the final decades of life des not mean they are any less valuable than those who are in their thirties or forties. But that’s exactly the rub. You see, utilitarianism defines the good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number and which ever way one slices it, forcing millions and millions of younger people to lose employment, miss school, lose their life savings by closing their businesses, damage the next untold number of years of their future through the worst economic hardship since the Great Depression so the elderly can survive doesn’t measure up.

The fact is, if utilitarianism is true, then what we are doing to protect the elderly and frail among us would be defined as evil. It is morally wrong to intentionally not seek out the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number. Remember, this concept is the baseline for determining what is classified as moral or immoral. Society suffering for the sake of the few is always immoral in a utilitarian framework.

Of course, like Lopez, I don’t think most people would agree that the elderly should be expendable because of the pain inflicted on the many. In fact, seeking the pleasure of the masses at the expense of the frail, all other things being equal, is immoral. That means one cannot ground their moral values in utilitarianism since it can get morality exactly backwards, calling evil good and good evil. And without utilitarianism to fall back on, anyone who holds morality is real and objective will have a difficult time being consistent unless the foundation of right and wrong is found in God himself.

References

1. Ed. L. Miller. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 1996.447.
2. Steve Lopez. "Time for seniors to roll over and die so younger generations can get back to work? Not so fast." Los Angeles Times. May 6, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-06/time-for-seniors-to

A Rational Approach to COVID-19 (video)

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:00:00 +0000

As we enter the second month of shelter-in-place, people are asking "Just how dangerous is the coronavirus really?" In this interview, Lenny talks with Dr. AJ Roberts, who worked at the NIH for three years on the first SARS-coronavirus, to get clarity on what the virus is, just how dangerous it can be, and what we will be facing now that the initial wave of infections has crested.

For more articles, podcasts, and teachings on this subject, follow us online: http://www.comereason.org http://twitter.com/comereason https://www.facebook.com/comeletusreason To follow AJ, visit facebook.com/AJRobertsrtb/ or follow her on Twitter at @rtb_ajroberts

Coronavirus and Missing Other Souls

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 20:55:00 +0000

One of the more interesting byproducts of the sheltering laws during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is how much it underscores the fact we are not simply our bodies. I know that on its face this may seem counter intuitive, but let's think about our situation and what we are learning through our collective ordeal.

For weeks now, all the reporting on coronavirus and its ramifications have been from primarily a materialist point of view. Essential services have been defined to include bodily health, shelter, and transportation areas—all with the goal of preserving our physical selves. In my state of California, marijuana shops are classified as essential while churches are not.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that churches should be meeting together. I think in light of the dangers of contagion, restricting groups temporarily is prudent and biblical. (Remember, God took Jewish temple worship away from his people for seventy years while they were captives in Babylon.) My observations are more focused on how little consideration the spiritual costs have received during the whole crisis. News reports hunt down experts in biology, medicine, and epidemiology to update us on how to protect our bodies, but how many give equal time to faith leaders for advice on bolstering the spiritual health of those cloistered at home?

Isolation and Intimacy

Spiritual health is an essential aspect of being human, though. The interesting thing is that as our social distancing and sheltering-in-place stretch from a couple of weeks into months, we are realizing more and more how much it does. While churches can hold virtual services, everyone feels how incomplete such electronically simulated gatherings are. One of the reasons we need to assemble together physically (Heb. 10:25) is because it helps us relate to one another. That difference is becoming more and more apparent as we are limited to pictures instead of proximity. I'd rather have my family sitting in the same room with me without a lot of conversation than having Zoom engagements sans intimacy.

But just what is it that makes physical proximity more meaningful than virtual proximity? The difference is hard to explain in a purely materialist worldview. If all we are can be reduced to chemical reactions, then a virtual version of yourself should be just as good as the real thing. The same physical senses of sight and sound are engaged whether you see someone in front of you or on a screen. Sure, we cannot touch or smell others (perhaps the latter is a good thing!), but why is it more satisfying to have your friend from church sitting across from you rather than on a computer monitor? You're not touching in either instance.

Soulish Experiences

There seems to be a shared aspect of who we are spiritually when we come together in one space. That's why the Christian concept of koinonia or fellowship played such a vital role in the church's formation. Acts 2:42 tells us this was a doctrine of the church, rooted in the Apostles themselves. In John 4:24, Jesus instructs how since God is spirit, our worship must be based not in our physical behavior but in our spirit, our very essence. The Psalms also command us to praise God together with one voice (Psa. 47 & 95), and Paul echoes this in 1 Corinthians 14:26 and Ephesians 5:18-19. There is a unique aspect to us being together that cannot be replicated separately, as our souls are aligned towards the one true God and to the building up of each other.

One of the ways to realize the value of something is to make it scarce. If we are simply bodies, then our electronic communication channels should be as valuable as being close to one another. But we know that isn't true. We can feel there's something missing, a piece of reality that isn't measurable by sight or sound, or even touch or smell. There's the presence of individuals in one's life that is real and missing. I think as our proximity to one another becomes scarcer, we'll feel our need for soulish interactions will become more acute. Human beings are both body and soul. While screens can provide a replication of our bodies for one another, it cannot replicate that immaterial bonding between our souls. Our souls need to be in contact with one another, and it's this missing element we will need to address.

What to Make of the Mass Shooting Epidemic

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:15:00 +0000

What should we think about the increase in mass-shootings that have been plaguing the United States? Most recently, three different young men opened fire on the public over the course of one week in Gilroy, California; El Paso, Texas; and Dayton, Ohio. The shock and grief of these tragedies cannot be understated.

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, criminologists Jillian Peterson and James Densley laid out four consistent features common to nearly all mass shooters.1 They are:

Each had experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. This includes parental abuse, suicide, domestic violence and bullying.
Each experienced an identifiable crisis point, making them angry or depressed, prior to the shooting.
Each studied other shooters and sought validation or notoriety for their motives, many times through social media.
All had the means to carry out their plans.

While much of the political and media are focused on one aspect of the fourth point, that is gun control legislation, I think the first three areas need more attention, as they center on the foundational aspects of society: family, community, and a shared set of virtues.

Unraveling the Family

The primary building block of any society is the family. Biology dictated that a man and a woman were joined together as only that coupling can produce children. Offspring then reinforce the connection of the man and woman when each seeks their progeny’s protection and welfare.

Today, things have changed. Marriage is less about what happens to future generations than about self-fulfillment. Traditional motherhood roles are dismissed as backwards and stifling. Children are looked upon more as the latest accessory. The trends in intentional single mothers and homosexual couples using sperm donors or surrogacy to make babies exemplifies this attitude.

Losing Real Community

Humans seek community. We’re hard-wired as communal beings, sharing life and experiences with others who can support and reinforce one another physically, emotionally, and spiritually. But building a true community requires real-life, face-to-face interactions over an extended period of time. Long-term interactions with others teach you about the imperfections of people and how we can love them anyway. It is sharing experiences over time that deepens our relationships with one another, and it is the relationships that hold true meaning.

Our society today is speeding in the opposite direction. The hyper-individualism that our current culture celebrates is antithetical to community-building. Social media gives one the illusion of connectedness, but without all the messy and time-consuming face-to-face stuff.

Churches used to be the center of community-building. Many still function that way, but they are not valued as such by the larger culture anymore. It’s no wonder the U.S. has become a nation of lonely people and it’s no surprise that both suicide and drug addiction are becoming epidemics.

Abandoning Virtue

In his book Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged, Roger Scruton defines civilization as “a social entity that manifests religious, political, legal, and customary uniformity over an extended period, and which confers on its members the benefits of socially accumulated knowledge.”2 But what if a society abandoned the idea that socially accumulated knowledge is real knowledge? If virtue and morality are relative instead of absolute, then they don’t qualify as knowledge and they certainly cannot be passed down! Everyone has to find the truth for themselves.

We are losing the benefits of our former shared Judeo-Christian civilization because we are abandoning absolute morality. Without a foundational baseline, college students experience higher rates of sexual assaults even while its students hold that rape can be justified! Pitirim Sorokin rightly predicted that a culture driven by feelings instead of an understanding of innate truths will ultimately fall apart.

Adding in the Catalyst

Realize I am not saying that everyone in our cultural climate is going to become a mass shooter. I don’t believe that any more than I believe everyone is going to become a rapist. But, when the constraints that make killing or rape much more difficult are taken away, then it shouldn’t be a surprise to see more of those actions.

As a nerdy kid, I remember being excited when I stumbled upon the chemical elements needed to make nitroglycerin: you just combine nitric acid and glycerol. However, if you were to somehow be able to acquire nitric acid and then pour both chemicals in a flask directly, it wouldn’t do much. Like many chemical reactions, you need another ingredient that kicks the whole thing into gear; you need a catalyst. The catalyst for nitroglycerin is sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid allows the proper chemical reactions to take place so the nitric acid molecules can bond properly with the glycerin.

Because the United States is a gun culture, mass shooters have access to guns. But that alone doesn’t make one a mass shooter. The other three ingredients need to be there, too. In prior generations, more people owned guns as a percentage of the population. The Washington Post reports that gun ownership is actually at a 40-year low. It is society that’s changed and the results have been explosive, to say the least.

References

1 Jillian Peterson and James Densley. “Op-Ed: We Have Studied Every Mass Shooting since 1966. Here's What We've Learned about the Shooters.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 4 Aug. 2019, www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data.
2 Roger Scruton. Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged, New York: Encounter Books, 2007. 2.

Interview with Ken Samples - Classic Christian Thinkers

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 19:05:00 +0000

Have you ever wanted to ask the smartest person you know questions about God, the Bible, and how they fit with our world? What if you had a panel of nine? In this interview, Lenny Esposito talks with Kenneth Samples, author of Classic Christian Thinkers:An Introduction to highlight the ideas and impact that nine key Christian thinkers had on not only our faith but the wider world.

TV Tropes in the Book of Mormon

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Wed, 02 Jan 2019 21:26:00 +0000

One of the more interesting and unexpected by-products of the tech boom is how much more technically aware people have become in their media consumption. Take special effects for example. Green screen effects that would’ve wowed audiences in past generations are today easily spotted and considered cheap and clumsy.

The same can be said for story-telling techniques. With the proliferation of media channels, ham-fisted clichés in scripts (such as all bombs being defused with one second left on the timer) are quickly noticed. In fact, many comedy films will spoof these tropes as a way of showing just how phony such situations are.

These tropes can even be found in written material. Imagine a story where the document is supposed to sound archaic. Many times, writes will lapse into what TVTropes.org called “Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe.” Here’s their explanation:

Be the tale set in glorious 1300s Scotland or vexing 1840s Cardiff, appropriately "old-fashioned" English shalt if based on the archaic King James Bible. Thine formula is simple: addeth thou "-eth" and "-est" to random verbs, scattereth thou silent Es like the leaves of autumne, bandyeth about the words "thee", "thou", "thine", "doth", "hast", and "forsooth", reverseth 'pon every other occasion thine noun-verb order, and strewth, thou doth be the next Billy Shakespeare!1

I bring all this up because it became relevant after an ongoing conversation I had with a couple of Mormon missionaries. The young men had asked me to read 3 Nephi 11, as they found that chapter particularly moving. I went ahead and read the entire book of 3 Nephi to make certain I had the full context of the book. But in so doing, a glaring pattern emerged: over and over again, I kept reading the phrase “it came to pass.” The phrase appears fifteen times in chapter one alone! Moreover, the phrase wasn’t being used correctly. In the King James Bible, “it came to pass” was used as bridge to connect the prior narrative to the next section after some portion of time had elapsed, such as in 1 Kings 18:1 where it says “And it came to pass after many days…” In 3 Nephi, the phrase is being used sometimes for the immediate reaction of Nephi to an event that is now happening. The phrase just sticks out like a sore thumb.

This made me a bit more curious, though. If you go the online version of the Book of Mormon at LDS.org, you can search for the phrase “came to pass” (in quotes) and it will show the phrase is used 1824 times in the Book of Mormon. Compare that to the King James Bible, where the phrase is used 456 times in a work that is three times as long! That’s about a 1200% increase in frequency—which makes it kind of a tell that the phrase falls more into the trope category than it does appropriate translation.

The Mormon Response

BYU Studies, however, thinks this proves Joseph Smith was a better translator than the King James translators. At this page, they created a chart mapping the frequency of the phrase “it came to pass” from each book in the BOM. They then write:

Some readers wonder why these words occur so often in the Book of Mormon compared with the Bible. Actually, the Hebrew word wayehi is translated in the King James Version of the Bible as "it came to pass," but it is also translated as "it happened, came, had come, became, arose, was, now," and so forth. Therefore, what was an extremely common phrase in the Bible appears to be less so because it was translated into various phrases instead of a single one. Apparently, Joseph Smith was quite consistent in translating it with the phrase "it came to pass" every time.2

Here's the problem, though. The Hebrew וַיֶּ֑ה (wayehi ) would never have occurred in the original texts of the Book of Mormon at all. The book itself claims to have been written in reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics that were altered according to the language of the Nephites at that time. (Mormon 9:32). Mormon goes on to write that “none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof” (Mormon 9:34). So the standard grammar of the Hebrew wayehi doesn’t apply. It’s the translation where we are to judge.

The word wayehi literally translates to “and it was.” If that was the phrase that appeared over and over in the BOM, then perhaps the above defense would have some validity. But translators are intentionally choosing to use the phrase “it came to pass” to denote a passage of time. In other words, if the translators were to translate wayehi only and exclusively into “it came to pass,” it would be bad translating. But since it was God who supposedly interpreted the reformed Egyptian language to Joseph Smith, revealing the meaning of each word to him, it would mean that God was guilty of bad translation.

The missionaries I spoke with didn’t seem that bothered with the problem of the “Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe” trope appearing in the Book of Mormon. Of course, that isn’t the only historically problematic thing about the work. To me, it’s pretty clear that BYU Studies is trying to impose damage control. We can apply Ockahm’s Razor to this instance. The best explanation for the overuse of “it came to pass” is Joseph Smith wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand how that language is properly used. He relied on the “Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe” trope to try and make his audience believe what he had written should be accepted as archaic.

References

1. “Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe.” TV Tropes, TV Tropes, http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YeOldeButcheredeEnglishe. Accessed 2019-01-02
2. "134 - ‘It Came to Pass’ Occurrences in the Book of Mormon.” BYU Studies, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 10 Nov. 2017, http://www.byustudies.byu.edu/charts/134-it-came-pass-occurrences-book-mormon. Accessed 2019-01-02.

Uncovering the Hidden Riches of Christian History

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 18:20:00 +0000

People take pride in their heritage. It’s part of who they are and how they understand themselves. Our family traditions, the foods we eat, our shared celebrations and habits become valuable to us and help define us. The English hold parades on St. George’s Day and Americans will come together to celebrate the Fourth of July.

In school we are taught about our heritage. Americans learned about people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln--and significant events like the Continental Congress and the Civil War. Any Greek can tell you about Socrates or Alexander the Great. The French learn the exploits of Charlemagne and the theories of Rosseau.

But what about our Christian heritage?

Shouldn’t we as Christians pass to our children our spiritual heritage with the same importance and fervor as we give our cultural heritage? Any American who doesn’t know the Fourth of July is America’s birthday is considered uninformed. But how much do you know about the events that helped believers better understand and grow closer to God? What are their stories? How did they survive and even thrive in the face of brutal persecutions? Just what was the Council of Nicaea or the Great Schism? What made Luther nail his complaints to that Wittenberg church and how did our church fathers answer the deadly heresies that threatened the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints?

These are important stories to tell. That’s why the Come Reason Podcast has launched a series taking you on a journey of exploration--uncovering remarkable stories and discovering incredible insights into some of the most significant people and events that helped shaped our Christian faith into the world-transforming force it became.

Did you know the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology was examined and defeated by the early church councils? Or that most of the objections raised by today’s new atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris were answered by a man who lived 1600 years ago?

There is so much of our past that we’ve neglected, and so much we can learn from those who went before us. Join me at the beginning of this new year as we go on a treasure hunt to discover the Hidden Riches of Christian History. Here’s the first installment.

Series #1: Eleven Breaking into the Upside-Down

The first Christians were part of a world that was so different from our own that we would hardly recognize it. Not only did they battle persecution and discrimination, but the very values we now take for granted — like individuals being equal — were considered strange and dangerous. Rome saw the teachings of Christianity as a threat to their culture and they were right. The eleven apostles took the Gospel of Jesus and broke through the upside-down culture of ancient Rome to establish a new way of thinking, paying for it with their blood.

Always Be Ready: Interview with Dr. Hugh Ross

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:49:00 +0000

Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe has just published a new book entitled Always Be Ready, which provides personal stories and practical advice on how to share your faith with others. I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Hugh and discuss his story of how he came to Christ and how he overcame the double difficulties of witnessing in a scientific community while also being on the autistic spectrum.

Click below to watch the entire interview. You can get your copy of the book at Amazon here.

Holding up Irrationality as a Virtue When Kid's Lives Are at Stake

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 20:03:00 +0000

Recently through my social media channels, I linked to this article on how assisted suicide laws in Belgium were leveraged to allow kids as young as nine and eleven to take their own lives. It's dangerous that children who don't have either the experience or the maturity to know the true value of life are given the opportunity to end it, even though they may be sick. I said so in my post, But that isn't the point of this article.

When I posted the piece on the Come Reason Facebook page, I received a response from Scott Womack pushing back against my statement that the news was disturbing. Never before have I had a conversation where it ended with my interlocutor telling me I was wrong for being logical and consistent! I've reproduced the conversation below, but you may always read the original here.

Scott W: It’s Belgium. The children all suffered from debilitating conditions.

“The eldest of the three was a 17-year-old suffering from muscular dystrophy; the other two were 9 and 11. The 9-year-old had a brain tumor and the 11-year-old had cystic fibrosis.”

Human rights > cultural sensitivities.

Come Reason Ministries: Right. But we don't know if their conditions were terminal or not. Can a nine year old really make an informed decision about such grave matters? We recognize they are too inexperienced when it comes to alcohol or sex. Suicide?

Scott W: Can you make an informed decision concerning someone else’s quality of life? Isn’t that overreaching?

Come Reason Ministries: Not when it's protective. "First do no harm" state the Hippocratic oath.

Scott W: The Hippocratic oath also swears by Apollo the physician.

Come Reason Ministries: So what?

Scott W: So it’s a bit dated for our century.

The oath has also been updated, also the oath is ceremonial not obligatory.

Come Reason Ministries: But that principle is neither dated nor irrelevant. It answers your objection.

Scott W: Attached is a link to the modern successor of the oath.
BIOEDGE.ORG BioEdge: New Hippocratic Oath for doctors approved

Come Reason Ministries: Again, you're arguing beside the point. You asked, "Can you make an informed decision concerning someone else’s quality of life? Isn’t that overreaching?" My answer is "Yes, I can." Look at the transgender push for transitioning prepubescent children. Study after study shows that given time these kids will accept their biological sex over time AND that transitioning offers no improvement for risk of suicide. Therefore, I can safely say that even though the 9 and 11 year olds FEEL that their quality of life is bad and they WANT to transition, it would be the wrong course of action.

Suicide has no take-backs.

Scott W: Luckily you’re not in charge and No you don’t have the right or ability to make those decisions for other people.

Suicide is other peoples business not yours.

Come Reason Ministries: "Suicide is other peoples business not yours." You could say that about abortion or child sex trafficking.

Scott W: No, in your warped view you drew an equivalence I never drew.

In addition child sex trafficking is illegal.

Come Reason Ministries: Why is child sex trafficking illegal?

Scott W: Because secular law says so.

Come Reason Ministries: If that's all you have, it's a terrible reason. Laws are wrong all the time. Even MLK recognized this. I think you know there's more to those laws than "because the government says so."

Scott W: There’s more to the secular laws because secular authorities have the ability to back it up.

Certainly isn’t religious law that prevents child trafficking from happening.

Indeed Religious law Often serves as justification

Come Reason Ministries: So your answer is argumentum ad baculum? Might makes right in this case?

Scott W: What is your answer, religious law prevents child sex trafficking?

Scott W: Of course Law doesn’t stop anyone. The law simply lays out the consequences if your caught.

So yes might (The ability to cage monsters) does to the best of its ability make right.

Whereas you offer salvation to convicts convicted of horrible things, in order to make things right.

Come Reason Ministries: Might makes right. If one follows your stance consistently, then because the government has the might to separate families at the border, it is OK to do so.

You can either base your laws on power or on principle. Totalitarian regimes do the former.

Reasonable people do the latter. Pointing to fallacies is by definition unreasonable.

BTW, on the salvation comment, that's the second time you've yelled "Squirrel!" during our discussion. Red herrings are just as much of a logical fallacy as argumentum ad baculum.

Scott W: You seem to place a value on mental consistency that I don’t share or believe is possible.

You are just as irrational a capable of biases as I am.

Matter fact I’ve come to guard against people who are always consistent. GK Chesterton said that consistent people in lunatic asylum‘s.

I believe consistent people watch themselves too closely and likely suffer from a impairment in seeing and judging reality.

In this case the reality of human rights which were given by constitutional law not God.

Yours irrationality is performing mental gymnastics in order for your total worldview to make sense.

There’s a world of people you’ve missed in your equations between your totalitarian regimes and “rational” people.

Come Reason Ministries: I think we can leave it at that. Thanks so much for the discussion, Scott!

I must say, at least Scott is honest! Of course, he's completely misunderstood Chesterton (that would be for another post), but to think that if 100% complete mental consistency isn't possible we should give upon the endeavor altogether is, well, breath-taking. What do you think? Let me know in the comments below.

Displaying a God of Beauty Draws Youth to Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Thu, 05 Jul 2018 18:16:00 +0000

In my latest series of articles, I've been looking at leveraging beauty in our evangelism and our defense of the faith. We've already established that beauty is one of the primary virtues, and how we can know that beauty is not simply "in the eye of the beholder" as we've been led to believe. There is in fact an objective nature to beauty.

In an interesting post, Travis Dickenson pointed to an article in the U.K.'s The Telegraph entitled "One in six young people are Christian as visits to church buildings inspire them to convert." The article goes on to offer statistics of how more than one in five young people between 11 and 18 describe themselves as "active followers of Jesus" while 13% categorize themselves as practicing Christians. In 2006, a study showed that number as only 6%, which means the number of young people in the UK coming to faith may have more than doubled in just over a decade.1

What has driven this trend? The architecture of the church may have something to do with it, according to the article:

Around 13 per cent of teenagers said that they decided to become a Christian after a visit to a church or cathedral, according to the figures.

The influence of a church building was more significant than attending a youth group, going to a wedding, or speaking to other Christians about their faith.

…

The study suggests that new methods invested in by the Church, such as youth groups and courses such as Youth Alpha, are less effective than prayer or visiting a church building in attracting children to the church.

One in five said reading the Bible had been important, 17 per cent said going to a religious school had had an impact and 14 per cent said a spiritual experience was behind their Christianity.2

Leaving Out Beauty Leaves out the Full Picture of God

Dickenson notes all this and offers that there is something more powerful about experiencing God in a beautiful building than in a functional box:

We build church buildings today almost exclusively for function. Function is of course not unimportant. If there's no door to get into the building, then this is a problem. But we seem almost completely unconcerned about the kind of experience a building will give. There are some incredibly beautiful doors out there!

Does it sound strange to talk about beauty affecting our experience?

Consider what it would be like to read a book (even a really good book) sitting in a single chair with bright fluorescent lights in a high school gymnasium. Then consider what it would be like to read the same book [in an exquisitely crafted and detailed library.]

Or in a great coffee shop or out in nature.

The point is that the experiences depend in part on our environment. Being surrounded by beauty importantly changes and greatly enhances the experience. When we are surrounded by beauty, it more fully engages our souls. We are not just rationally engaged, but we are engaged in deep parts of our souls.

If this is right, then why wouldn't we include beautiful aspects in our worship environments? When the experience is only rote and rational, then we have not presented the full picture of who God is. 3

I think Dickenson's right in this. We are inspired by beauty in music, in architecture, and in form. We serve a God who values beauty, and we should properly represent Him this way as much as we do a God who values truth and reason. How do we know God values beauty? I'll offer that argument next time.

References

1. Olivia Rudgard. "One in Six Young People Are Christian as Visits to Church Buildings Inspire Them to Convert." The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 17 June 2017, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/17/one-six-young-people-christian-visits-church-buildings-inspire/. Accessed 5 July 2018.
2. Ibid.
3. Travis Dickenson. "Want to Reach Youth? Build a Beautiful Building!" The Benefit of the Doubt, 23 June 2017, www.travisdickinson.com/want-reach-youth-build-beautiful-building/. Accessed 5 July 2018.

The Objective Nature of Beauty

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Tue, 03 Jul 2018 19:34:00 +0000

In my last article, I said that we live in a beauty-starved culture and one overlooked aspect of sharing our faith is appealing to the beauty of God and the beauty of the Christian story. Beauty is one of the three primary virtues, along with Goodness and Truth. Each of these is grounded in God's existence. When we talk about what is moral or immoral, we necessarily assert an objective starting point. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, one cannot call something crooked unless one knows what a straight line is.

Is beauty something objective like morality or truth? Most people have been taught to think it isn't. We've heard phrases like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and assumed that it means there is no objective standard, no "Straight line" against which to judge something as beautiful. We've assumed that the statement "that is beautiful" is the same as "I derive pleasure from experiencing that."

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an objective nature to beauty and it is common to all humanity. Can you even picture anyone across time who would gaze at a prismatic sunset and be revolted? Is anyone of the people who come from around the world to take in the vistas of the Grand Canyon repulsed at the sight? All cultures have approached pattern, color, and art to beautify their lives in common ways.

Disinterested Interest

The primary difference between personal pleasure and beauty is that the beauty of a thing lies in the existence of beauty in itself, instead of just what we can get out of that thing. Roger Scruton makes this distinction well. He points to Immanuel Kant's use of the idea of an "interested approach" versus a "disinterested approach." An "interested approach" is when we are interested in a thing when we use that thing to satisfy our own desires. For example, we are interested in a roller coaster because of the thrill it conveys when we ride in it.

But a disinterested interest is something different. That's when we are interested in the thing for nothing more than the thing itself. Scruton explains:

Animals have only 'interested' attitudes: in everything they are driven by their desires, needs and appetites, and treat objects and other animals as instruments to fulfill those things. We, however, make a distinction in our thinking and behavior, between those things that means to us, and those things that are ends in themselves. Towards some things we take an interest that is not governed by interest but which is, so to speak, entirely devoted to the object. (Emphasis in original).1

No one looks to a sunset as a means to another end. To experience a glorious sunset is to experience the beautiful. Even though the experience itself gives one pleasure, it isn't the fact that looking at the sunset is pleasurable that makes it beautiful. Imagine a man who has just been fired from his job. His wife calls him outside to look at the beautiful sunset and he obliges, even though he doesn't feel like doing so. Staring at the sky, he doesn't experience the joy that she does. He's too depressed. However, no one in such a position could honestly define the sunset as ugly. One may not be able to experience the transcendence of beauty because of one's emotional state, but even in this situation, one recognizes that it is a beautiful site.

That's what I mean when I say there is a disinterested interest in beauty. The beauty of the sunset didn't change subjective to the man's experience of it; the man simply missed the joy that comes with appreciating the beautiful, just has if he stayed inside. If pressed, he would admit the sunset is beautiful but he can't "get into" it right now.

Beauty is objective. It is not a means to an end; it is to be enjoyed for its own sake. That makes the pursuit of the beautiful, like the pursuit of the good and the true valuable. As human beings, we know this intuitively, which is why beauty permeates all cultures.

In my next article, I will show how the fact that beauty is objectively real points to the existence of God.

References

1. Roger Scruton. Beauty: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. 22. Print.

Arguing for the Beauty of God in an Ugly World

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Mon, 02 Jul 2018 17:44:00 +0000

Beauty matters. Along with the Good and the True, the Beautiful was understood to be one of the fundamental aspects of ideal human existence. From the earliest societies, people sought to surround themselves with what is beautiful. It is a part of how people shape their culture and how they interact with one another. Greek columns and Roman mosaics are iconic representations of the heights of their cultural achievements. We seek to adorn ourselves with the beautiful.

Yet we live in a time where function has overtaken form and pragmatism overrides aesthetics. Cold concrete boxes and black asphalt has replaced the Greek column and the Roman mosaic. The West emphasizes the laboratory over the Louvre, rapidness over reflection, and efficiency over elegance. Philosopher Roger Scruton presented some clarifying remarks on the relation of beauty to culture. He writes:

Unlike science, culture is not a repository of factual information or theoretical truth, nor is it a kind of training in skills, whether rhetorical or practical. Yet it is a source of knowledge: emotional knowledge, concerning what to do and what to feel. We transmit this knowledge through ideals and examples, through images, narratives, and symbols. We transmit it through the forms and rhythms of music, and through the orders and patterns of our built environment. Such cultural expressions come about as a response to the perceived fragility of human life, and embody a collective recognition that we depend on things outside our control. Every culture therefore has its root in religion, and from this root the sap of moral knowledge spreads through all the branches of speculation and art. Our civilization has been uprooted. But when a tree is uprooted it does not always die. Sap may find its way to the branches, which break into leaf each spring with the perennial hope of living things. Such is our condition, and it is for this reason that culture has become not just precious to us, but a genuine political cause, the primary way of conserving our moral heritage and of standing firm in the face of a clouded future. 1

Beauty matters a lot, perhaps a lot more than the place we give it in modern Western culture. Yet, there is still a longing for beauty in the human soul, perhaps even more so now that beauty isn't integrated into our everyday experiences. As I speak to young people today, they long to find the beautiful in life.

Because Christians live in the milieu of Western pragmatism, we can lose sight of the power of appealing to the Beautiful as an argument for God. Apologists tend to argue about facts of science, as being for or against “X,” or tackling objection it thrown at them. These are all worthwhile pursuits, but I think there's a huge untapped potential in appealing to the Christian God and the Christian story as ways of finding the beautiful isn't considered enough. Scruton continues:

At the same time, the decline in religious faith means that many people, both skeptics and vacillators, begin to repudiate their cultural inheritance. The burden of this inheritance, without the consolations on offer to the believer, becomes intolerable, and creates the motive to scoff at those who seek to hand it on.2

We live in a world where nothing seems concrete. The beautiful has been obfuscated, but every human being still longs for it. I think the attractiveness of God is harder for atheists to argue against than some of the traditional proofs for His existence—or at least harder to misinterpret.

In upcoming posts, I'll be presenting ways how you may integrate arguments for beauty into your discussions about God. For we don't worship a God who is merely practical. We worship the God of Beauty.

References

1. Roger Scruton. Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged. New York: Encounter, 2007. Print. V.
2. Ibid.

What Drives a Cult Leader like David Koresh?

noreply@blogger.com (Lenny Esposito) — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 22:00:00 +0000

Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. Government had surrounded the compound of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, embroiled in a stand-off that would last 51 days and tragically ended in gunfire with 75 of the 84 people inside dead, including children.

I was recently interviewed by Brody Harness for a research project he was doing on the siege and I thought these questions were very poignant and valuable to better understand the cult leader and others like him. Here's a copy of that interview.

Briefly, the Branch Davidians were a group of religious believers whose version of biblical theology was explicated by David Koresh. Many of their important beliefs, and the reason they lived communally at a compound, Mt. Carmel, centered on Koresh's interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Can you shed light on this group directly (or perhaps generally) based on similar groups who focus on Revelations?

The Branch Davidians were an offshoot of the Seventh-Day Adventist movement. The emphasis on the Book of Revelation comes from their focus on the end times scenarios. The term “Adventist” stems from the word advent which refers to the coming of Christ. Just as we celebrate Christ's first coming before Christmas and call it the season of advent, advent can also refer to His second coming. Most modern Adventist groups, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses find their origin in an early 1800's preacher named William Miller, who preached that Jesus would return in 1844. He became very popular and gained a wide following. The subsequent failure of Miller's prediction is known as The Great Disappointment.

When Jesus didn't return as expected, the “Millerites” (who preferred the name Adventists) started coming up with alternate explanations, such as Jesus had returned invisibly (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Jesus came into the heavenly Holy of Holies and ended the age of grace, and is now beginning his period of Investigative Judgment (Seventh-Day Adventists).

The Branch Davidians splintered off the SDA back in the 1930s when a leading Adventist in the Los Angeles area, Victor Houteff, began teaching the church wasn't being holy enough. David Koresh's mother was a member of a Texas SDA church and Koresh himself was also a member for a while, before being attracted to the Davidian sect. According to Apologetics Index, Koresh claimed to be God's agent, (and ultimately taught his followers that he was divine) and instructed those that followed him to preparing themselves for Jesus's return.

Part of the governments “case” for treating the Branch Davidians as they did was the fact that David Koresh was legally married to a cult member when she was just 14 years old, and that he was fathering children with the wives of the other adult males, while banning all other sexual relationships within the church. The government felt children were endangered at Mt. Carmel by these practices which did not appear to be the case according to some sources close to the investigation; however, it did appear to reflect and elevate Koresh's psychological hold on the group. Can you discuss some of the dynamics of sex/family/religion practices? (Again, either specifically with the Branch Davidians, or generally in cults.)

Sex drove a lot of Koresh's desires. Even in the mid 1980s, Koresh began taking on multiple wives as he also started establishing himself as a leader within the Davidian movement. He was a polygamist and saw himself as taking a role akin to David in the Old Testament establishing the Davidic Kingdom of Israel (thus the Davidians portion of the name.)

Since David had multiple wives in the Old Testament, Koresh felt that justified him to also have multiple wives. Of course, as his power and following grew, he became more and more self-absorbed, something that is typical of cult leaders. His doctrines “departed radically from the essential doctrines of the Christian faith”1 and he demanded total control over his followers, cutting off outside ties and subjecting them to various physical and mental abuses.2

There was a general belief by the FBI and ATF that the Branch Davidians had a suicide pact and this was part of the federal government's decision making process which led to a military rather than law enforcement approach with the Branch Davidians. From what you know, was this assumption rational? Would it have been more rational in the 1993?

There are two pieces that powered the concern by the authorities at the standoff. The first is that David Koresh had a known history of violence, since he and some of his early followers took control of the Davidian compound in a gunfight with then-leader George Roden. But the biggest spectre in everyone's mind was the Jonestown Massacre of 1978. There, another charismatic leader, Jim Jones, took a large group of followers from California to the jungles of Guyana and created a commune. He ultimately convinced his followers to commit suicide by drinking cyanide placed in Kool-Aid. Those that didn't or were too young were forcibly given the poison.

The loss of those 908 people, along with the prior shooting of U.S congressman Leo Ryan who sought to investigate Jones' alleged human rights abuses gave the public grave concern that a similar event would take place in Waco.

I don't think we are any more or less likely today to come to a different conclusion. Religiously motivated actions have taken on a deeper suspicion in our culture. The powers that be may not jump immediately to a suicide cult assumption; I believe the suspicion would still exist. It is the aftermath and criticism of the Waco siege itself that tempers actions now.

When the government attacked, surrounded, and eventually destroyed the compound in 1993, the Branch Davidians interpreted all of the government's aggression as fulfillment of prophecy. Koresh probably contributed to the destruction of his community by insisting that they were being “tested” and if they left the compound they would lose their place in the kingdom to come. Koresh also provoked the ATF and FBI by repeatedly promising and stalling surrender to complete writing his own revelation which would be released publically. Is there a psychological profile, maybe narcissism or delusions of grandeur, which characterizes charismatic leaders like Koresh?

Absolutely. Jim Jones, David Koresh, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, and even Joseph Smith all exhibit this kind of self-absorption. In all these cases, you have a single individual who tells others that he alone has the true and secret knowledge of God/salvation/eternity and everyone else needs to listen to him. As he gains adherents and adulation, it feeds his narcissism and for most groups one can see their doctrine devolve more and more. With all the men above, their paranoia and desire for control escalated as well.

Finally, do you have thoughts about government (law enforcement) interference with the free practice of religion –like the Branch Davidians, or polygamists or other cults?

All rights have limits. Everyone recognizes one's right to free speech, but you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded movie house. Similarly, one's right to practice the freedom to worship does not include the physical abuse of children or child rape. The difficulty is in finding where that line begins and ends.
We all agree that keeping thirteen children half-starved in a shack with some chained to their beds is no longer simply exercising one's freedom of religion, but is homeschooling abuse? Is corporal punishment abuse? The questions get complicated pretty quickly.

For the most port, the government has given the benefit of the doubt to the religious organizations. Scientology is a good example of a modern day American cult who engages in psychological techniques and even imprisonment of its disobedient members that the government has not interfered with.

Any other ideas you would like to share on this subject?

The big thing to remember in Waco, Jonestown, and other cult situations is that these are fringe groups that were cults in both the religious and the sociological definitions. Those definitions are important, too, for one can be a cult sociologically but not have a religious basis. Charles Manson and the Manson family would be an example of a non-religious cult. Of course Manson used the Bible to try and justify his views, but he also used the Beatles and his followers were more concerned about race relations than become God's chosen.

Sociological cult leaders will use religion simply because it is easier to talk of mysteries where they can give their “inside knowledge” that gullible people will accept. Even Hitler used religion as a motivator.

For more on the making of a religious cult, see my articles:

Thanks for the interview! Let me know if I can be of any more help.

1. "The Branch Davidians." Equip.org. Christian Research Institute, 04 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2018.

2. Ibid.