TBC What's New Feed

Nor can we be impressed with the reasons [Dawkins] has since accumulated in the name of science and offers to us now. Concerning the all-important question of the origin of life, he says,

“The major ingredient was heredity, either DNA or (more probably) something that copies like DNA but less accurately, perhaps the related molecule RNA. Once the vital ingredient—some kind of genetic molecule—is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow, and complex life emerges as the eventual consequence. But the spontaneous arising by chance of the first heredity molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybe it is—very, very improbable. . . . The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for research. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is not mine. [Emphasis added]”

A critic of the article “How to build a bomb in the public school stem” argued that a biblical foundation was unnecessary for ethics. Jonathan Sarfati’s response explains how Christian foundations underpin the prosperity and science of the West, and contrasts these with the atrocities of atheistic regimes. This needs to be revisited especially with the increasingly shrill atheistic attacks on Christianity in general and on Christian freedoms, pushing moral boundaries, and even a leading atheistic evolutionist saying that Hitler’s ideas should be reconsidered. Then the response explains the real problem for atheists trying to build an ethical system.

 “How to Build a Bomb.” You wrote that in order to create an explosive child all that was required was to educate that child to believe that we evolved from animals, life is an accident and that there are no absolutes.

“That belief system which is indoctrinated into kids provides the perfect basis for this.

“Well, I and many, many other people like me believe exactly those things, reaching our conclusions through trial and error and by asking questions of ourselves and the world we live in and not shying away from the answers whatever they appeared to be or mean. In doing so we feel we have a wider more stable foundation with which to tackle the problems of today’s MODERN society and MODERN man’s need for a combination of tangible truth and spiritual peace, two quarters in which the ancient indoctrination of organized religion has consistently failed to provide.”

Actually, biblical Christianity has provided the only basis for prosperous modern democracies, including:

• The rule of law, which binds all people, recognizing a higher source of the law. The alternative is rule by despots.
• Equality of all people under the law, neither favoring the rich nor the poor (Job 34:19).
• Property rights, presupposed in the command against theft (Exodus 20:15). Without them, the capital cannot be used as capital for investment loans, and there is no protection for what people have earned by productive work. Indeed, Hernando de Soto’s book The Mystery of Capital shows that if private property in poor countries were freed up from statist ownership, this would provide 90 times more wealth than all the foreign aid to all Third World countries over the past three decades.
• All these are biblical principles, and it is no accident that the most prosperous countries have adopted them, and that the poorest countries fail. Even now, prosperous countries in the west are still benefiting from these Christian-based foundations laid down in their past.
• Conversely, atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast. Neither could atheistic economies remotely compete with the West—e.g., it didn’t take long for the USA to outstrip the USSR in the space race when they put their minds to it.

[An atheist noted] “In short I am, to you, a walking time bomb. I am, in actual fact, a diligent, hardworking, caring, stable, compassionate, intelligent, kind, thoughtful and considerate individual…”

[And nice to your mother too, I’ve heard.]

“(as are many, many of my likeminded friends all around the world) we manage to live the lives your religion postulates without the need for the pomp and scripture, the fear and hatred and the presence of any kind of omnipresent deity to keep us in check. I wondered how you would explain this?”

Nothing to explain. The article explained that evolution provides the basis for the bomb-building, not that everyone would act consistently on this basis. We know that many atheists borrow a moral code from outside their belief system, since that can’t provide any. The rabid misotheist Richard Dawkins even claimed that he was a passionate Darwinist as to how we got here, but a passionate anti-Darwinist when it came to morality.

Rather, our argument is not that atheists cannot live ‘good’ lives, but that there is no objective basis for their goodness if we are just rearranged pond scum.

[For the full text of this article, please see:]

https://creation.com/why-christianity-not-atheism-is-the-only-rational-foundation-for-ethics

Most of our readers are at least aware of the problems that result from doctrinal heresy, but few are aware or have thought about relational heresy or even know what it might be. Almost 20 years ago, our friend and associate, Rich Poll from Apologia Report contributed the article, "The Ambush of Discernment." He deals with many of the aspects of discernment that can derail those involved due to false expectations, workload, and other things including our attitude toward others. In other words, our relationships. Bob from RPM Ministries just posted the article, "Beware of Relational Heresy While Addressing Perceived Doctrinal Heresy." The issue is an important one. A pastor and good friend, Fred Greening the mean-spiritedness which seemed to be part and parcel of those who engaged in apologetics/discernment ministry until he met Joy and me. He began talking about the issues of mindless evangelism and heartless apologetics:

We talk a lot about doctrinal heresy—and it is a vital issues that we must address.

Orthodoxy—right belief—is essential.

We seem to talk less about relational heresy.

Orthopraxy—right relationships, right living—is equally essential.

We talk even less about right relationships while talking about right doctrine. Our failure to address this runs counter to God’s all-sufficient Word. The Bible is replete with commands about how we treat one another while we address doctrinal disagreements. The Bible consistently commands us to guard our hearts against relational heresy.

The point in the article is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that it is normative for churches to talk about "Orthodoxy—right belief—is essential." Sadly, it isn't so. All we have to do is look around at how many churches embrace the occultism of the Enneagram, the New Apostolic Reformation, or Bill Gothard's teaching, to name but a few examples. In those settings, there seems to be the idea that niceness is the closest thing to godliness, and pointing out false doctrine is viewed as decidedly not nice and, therefore, ungodly. However, that being said, the article is an important one. There is a great deal in Scripture about defending the faith, exposing false doctrines, and teaching the essentials, and there is a great deal about our hearts and how we treat others in the process. Our goal is not to win arguments but to win over those in error.

https://mailchi.mp/36941ce94c68/the-gift?e=169825fd77

Richard Dawkins has not explained anything, let alone how life began. This seems odd in view of the fact that he declares a number of times that Darwin explained everything about life. Isn’t this how Dawkins says he was converted to the religion of atheism? Let me quote him again: “My final vestige of religious faith disappeared when I finally understood the Darwinian explanation for life.”6 But he has also told us, as have the other leaders of the New Atheists, that Darwinism doesn’t explain the origin of life after all, so there was really no sound reason for his conversion to atheism! That should be more than a little disconcerting.

I don’t know whether the growing lack of clarity in many evangelical quarters about the person and work of Jesus Christ is due to outside influences or internal weaknesses. Perhaps it is a bit of both. But it is shocking to me how many new evangelical ideas are uncanny in their resemblance to the Adventism I grew up with. For me, a personal example is that of David M. Moffitt’s recent book Rethinking the Atonement. It features a foreword by N. T. Wright and aims to move past beyond traditional views of the atonement that the author considers to be “reductive.”

One essay in this book is distressingly titled “It Is Not Finished: Jesus’s Perpetual Atoning Work as the Heavenly High Priest in Hebrews.” Though Moffitt does not come from an Adventist background, his proposed revision of the biblical doctrine of Christ’s atonement has features which are deeply disquieting to me. The author attempts to pit Christ’s cry on the cross “It is finished!” (John:19:3And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
See All...) against a revisionist understanding of Hebrews which argues that Jesus’ ongoing “high-priestly intercession” indicates “some kind of ongoing work of sacrificial atonement.”

In fact, I found out recently that [Seventh day Adventist] Roy Gane has publicly stated that his writings on atonement have partly been the basis for Moffitt’s new thinking about the epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, Gane cites Moffitt’s Rethinking the Atonement as an example of a new work in evangelical scholarship that is much closer to the Adventist position. The two-phase atonement, an Adventist innovation that robs Christ of his rightful glory and robs Christians of their assurance of salvation, is slowly working its way into the evangelical consciousness.

—Kaspars Ozolins (Former Adventist, born in Latvia to an Adventist family, Assistant Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.” This is a good summary of relativism.

Now here is the thing. The acceptance of moral relativism is closely linked to acceptance of the theory of evolution. The argument is that as we have evolved from lesser biological organisms, so our morals and ethics are also evolving. The end result is summed up by famous humanist Paul Kurtz: “If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself.” The bottom line for Humanism is that we cannot declare an absolute, fixed standard of morality. They end up arguing that there is “absolutely” no room for a Holy God!

Moral relativists become quite indignant and even dictatorial when it negatively impacts them. Consider what has happened to businesses providing wedding services when the proprietors argue it goes against their morals to participate in a same-sex wedding. Florists, bakers, and photographers have been successfully sued all over the United States in spite of our 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion.

The homosexual lobby has successfully claimed the rights of a persecuted minority in these cases. And, so they have actually twisted Nietzsche’s moral-relativist creed to say, “I have my way, but you don’t have your way. Because the right way is my way.” Thus, relativism ironically turns into dictatorship because their new moral absolutes replace God’s eternal absolutes, and are forced upon everyone else!

– Mark Cadwallader (Creation Moments Board Chairman)

https://creationmoments.com/how-evolution-leads-to-dictatorship/

If energy can’t be created, it must have been here forever. We know that is not possible, or all matter would have become useless by now. Every attempt that atheists make to avoid the logical consequences of the facts as we know them comes up against the stone wall of established scientific law.

Lennox commented, “That repugnance was shared by others in the mid-twentieth century. Gold, Bondi, Hoyle, and Narlikar advanced a series of steady-state theories in which it was argued that the universe always existed, [and] that matter was continuously being created in order to keep the density of the admittedly expanding universe uniform. . . .”

The article, "Bible Reading in Public Schools, History of Before and after Abington School District v. Schempp," gives a brief overview of how Bible reading was prevalent in school education to instill morality and a sense of good government and other things until the mid-twentieth century. A number of groups worked hard to eliminate Bible reading in school and were fairly successful by the mid-1960s. However, there are movements to bring Bible reading back into public education like "Texas proposal would give schools the option to use Bible teachings in lessons": 

Texas public schools could use teachings from the Bible in lessons as an option for students from kindergarten through fifth grade under a proposal that drew hours of testimony Monday and follows Republican-led efforts in other states to incorporate more religious teaching into classrooms.

Teachers and parents gave impassioned testimony for and against the curriculum plan at a meeting of the Texas State Board of Education, which is expected to hold a final vote on the measure later this week.

The curriculum — designed by the state’s public education agency — would allow teachings from the Bible such as the Golden Rule and lessons from books such as Genesis into classrooms. Under the plan, it would be optional for schools to adopt the curriculum though they would receive additional funding if they did so.

God's word is alive and active, as Hebrews:4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
See All... asserts, but it can also be reduced to being little more than lessons in being good neighbors and diminishing the central point and thrust of Scripture. Can children be brought to the place of seeing it as little more than a book of etiquette and simply become better-behaved sinners but never redeemed to eternal life?  It is a difficult question to answer.

https://mailchi.mp/d818d32242b2/social-justice?e=169825fd77

The article, "Bible Reading in Public Schools, History of Before and after Abington School District v. Schempp," gives a brief overview of how Bible reading was prevalent in school education to instill morality and a sense of good government and other things until the mid-twentieth century. A number of groups worked hard to eliminate Bible reading in school and were fairly successful by the mid-1960s. However, there are movements to bring Bible reading back into public education like "Texas proposal would give schools the option to use Bible teachings in lessons": 

Texas public schools could use teachings from the Bible in lessons as an option for students from kindergarten through fifth grade under a proposal that drew hours of testimony Monday and follows Republican-led efforts in other states to incorporate more religious teaching into classrooms.

Teachers and parents gave impassioned testimony for and against the curriculum plan at a meeting of the Texas State Board of Education, which is expected to hold a final vote on the measure later this week.

The curriculum — designed by the state’s public education agency — would allow teachings from the Bible such as the Golden Rule and lessons from books such as Genesis into classrooms. Under the plan, it would be optional for schools to adopt the curriculum though they would receive additional funding if they did so.

God's word is alive and active, as Hebrews:4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
See All... asserts, but it can also be reduced to being little more than lessons in being good neighbors and diminishing the central point and thrust of Scripture. Can children be brought to the place of seeing it as little more than a book of etiquette and simply become better-behaved sinners but never redeemed to eternal life?  It is a difficult question to answer.

https://mailchi.mp/d818d32242b2/social-justice?e=169825fd77

Sir Arthur Eddington, when confronted with the question of a beginning to the universe, reacted as follows: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant. . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole.” Clearly, however, there is no loophole through which the atheist can make any face-saving escape.

In our 2023 article, "What’s Happening in the Church?"  we noted that Andy Stanley takes issue with adultery while affirming homosexuality and also "teaches “Gay Christians” More Faithful Than Straight Christians, We Must Learn From Them." More recently he has started the "Unconditional Conference." Alan Shlemon from Stand To Reason attended a conference to see for himself what is going on and being taught. He reports on it and how CNN is in turn, using the conference teachings to further advance the belief that sexual immorality is not condemned in Scripture. In "CNN Repeats Andy Stanley’s Conference Falsehoods" Shlemon writes:

“The first falsehood CNN repeats is that homosexuality and transgenderism are theologically neutral. The CNN article repeats a tagline from the conference: “In a world that makes us choose sides, experience a conference from the quieter middle.” This claim purports to suggest that there is a theologically neutral position on the morality of homosexual sex and satisfying transgender ideation. Greg McDonald emphasized this claim when he said at the conference, “We have no desire to change your theology.”

“But is there a middle ground on this topic? No. A basic law of logic is the law of excluded middle. It states that, for any proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true. In other words, a claim is only either true or false. Homosexual sex is sin or it’s not. I’ve argued that Scripture teaches that homosexual sex is sin. It’s possible I’m mistaken (though that would need to be argued and not just asserted), which would mean it’s not a sin. But there’s no middle ground. Someone is mistaken.

“This does not mean that people who disagree on the topic shouldn’t be gracious towards each other. I wholeheartedly support a kinder tone towards people who are on opposite sides of this issue. That’s very different, though, from claiming theological neutrality.”

The pressure by Progressives outside and inside the church is great. For a growing number of celebrity Christians, organizations and publications are increasing, and Andy Stanely, who disconnected from the Old Testament, seems to be one of the leading Pied Pipers in reimaging biblical teachings in general to help many in "Embracing the Journey" toward their sin of choice.”

https://mailchi.mp/09bad725e3b6/why-christians-need-to-talk-about-video-games?e=169825fd77 

In our 2023 article, "What’s Happening in the Church?"  we noted that Andy Stanley takes issue with adultery while affirming homosexuality and also "teaches “Gay Christians” More Faithful Than Straight Christians, We Must Learn From Them." More recently he has started the "Unconditional Conference." Alan Shlemon from Stand To Reason attended a conference to see for himself what is going on and being taught. He reports on it and how CNN is in turn, using the conference teachings to further advance the belief that sexual immorality is not condemned in Scripture. In "CNN Repeats Andy Stanley’s Conference Falsehoods" Shlemon writes:

“The first falsehood CNN repeats is that homosexuality and transgenderism are theologically neutral. The CNN article repeats a tagline from the conference: “In a world that makes us choose sides, experience a conference from the quieter middle.” This claim purports to suggest that there is a theologically neutral position on the morality of homosexual sex and satisfying transgender ideation. Greg McDonald emphasized this claim when he said at the conference, “We have no desire to change your theology.”

“But is there a middle ground on this topic? No. A basic law of logic is the law of excluded middle. It states that, for any proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true. In other words, a claim is only either true or false. Homosexual sex is sin or it’s not. I’ve argued that Scripture teaches that homosexual sex is sin. It’s possible I’m mistaken (though that would need to be argued and not just asserted), which would mean it’s not a sin. But there’s no middle ground. Someone is mistaken.

“This does not mean that people who disagree on the topic shouldn’t be gracious towards each other. I wholeheartedly support a kinder tone towards people who are on opposite sides of this issue. That’s very different, though, from claiming theological neutrality.”

The pressure by Progressives outside and inside the church is great. For a growing number of celebrity Christians, organizations and publications are increasing, and Andy Stanely, who disconnected from the Old Testament, seems to be one of the leading Pied Pipers in reimaging biblical teachings in general to help many in "Embracing the Journey" toward their sin of choice.”

https://mailchi.mp/09bad725e3b6/why-christians-need-to-talk-about-video-games?e=169825fd77 

The message of good news of great joy is for all the peoples. There is nothing surprising about the inclusion of all the nations of the world when Christ is worthy to be praised by every tongue, except that this was the expected King of the Jews. This invitation has always been for the nations, but prophesies of a Kingdom that will one day invite all peoples into the Promised One’s work of redemption have now been made fully realized in Christ coming as a baby. 

The wise men came eager to worship the Christ, because they knew He was born for them, but there could not have been anyone less suitable to come before the King. 

“When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 
And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother,
and they fell down and worshiped him” (Matthew:2:10-11 [10] When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. [11] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
See All...).

These pagan magi from the east represent those who live in spiritual darkness. They were Gentiles and of those who were most unlikely to be welcomed in. And yet maybe that is exactly why Matthew rejoices to proclaim that on them the light has shone! The Lord’s desire for the nations is woven throughout the narrative of Scripture and displayed specifically in the story of the incarnation.  

—Missionary on a foreign field (name and nation withheld due to a “sensitive” area)

John Lennox wrote, “[Friedrich] Engels made a very perceptive comment on the issues at stake: ‘Did God create the world? Or has the world been in existence eternally? . . .” Obviously, it has not always existed because although, according to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be destroyed, the second law, the law of entropy, declares that it deteriorates until it becomes utterly useless. This tells us that the universe had a beginning, or energy would have degraded to the point of total uselessness.

Lennox continued, “Stephen Hawking adopts a similar view: ‘Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.’” In spite of reluctance to accept the consensus that the cosmos had a beginning, the evidence cannot be denied.

Christ’s death for our sins is the most basic fact of the gospel. But, millions of people have died throughout history. In fact, every person who has ever lived has died or will die, with just a few exceptions. Many also were crucified. On the day Christ died on the cross, two other men were crucified, one on each side of Him. What, then, is significant about the death of Christ? Simply, it is that He died for our sins.

We call this concept “substitutionary atonement.” Christ died instead of us. He didn’t die for Himself; He died in our place, as our substitute, to atone for our sins and allow us to enter into a right relationship with a holy God.

The death of Christ as our substitute is the heart of the gospel. It’s not just that He died, but that He died for our sins.

The next phrase in 1 Corinthians 15:3 says that Christ died for our sins “according to the Scriptures.” Paul was not referring to any particular Scripture, but to all the Old Testament Scriptures that emphasize God providing a Savior who would die and pay the penalty for sin.

Earlier in this letter, Paul alluded to one such Old Testament passage when he said, “For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). The death of Christ was our Passover lamb being sacrificed.

The concept of a Passover lamb refers back to the Old Testament Book of Exodus. The nation Israel was in bondage in Egypt, and God was going to slay the firstborn of every family in Egypt. He told the Jews to kill a lamb, and then to put the blood of that lamb over the doorposts and on the lintel of the house. Later that night, when He went to slay the firstborn, if He saw blood on the doorposts and lintel of a home, He would pass over it. He would accept that blood as an indication that a death had occurred to take the place of that family’s firstborn (see Ex. 12).

This event foreshadowed the time when God would provide His Son as our Passover lamb. When John the Baptist introduced Jesus to the nation Israel, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). His announcement declared that Jesus is that ultimate sacrificial lamb, the only One who can pay the penalty for sin. Therefore, all the sacrifices of the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of Christ.

The theme of the Book of Hebrews is the superiority of Christ in replacing all the Old Testament systems, sacrifices and ceremonies. The Old Testament sacrifices, under the Law, were a reminder of sin year by year (Heb. 10:3).

Hebrews 10:4 says, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”

Clearly the problem with the sacrifice of animals was that they couldn’t take away sin.

Because of this, the next verse states: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body hast thou prepared me” (Heb. 10:5). The writer, in a fitting summary, explained that Jesus Christ was born into the human race so that He could bear the sins that the animals could not. He is our Passover Lamb.

The purpose of Jesus’ death could not be any clearer. The message resounds throughout the Old and New Testament. He died in our place to provide atonement and forgiveness and pay the penalty for our sins once and for all.

—Pastor Gil Rugh (The focus of Pastor Rugh’s ministry is systematic, verse-by-verse teaching of the Bible).

In these first five words of the Bible, God has issued a challenge. We are still waiting for atheists and today’s scientists to provide a substantive response. In his new book, very lucidly and convincingly written, Why Evolution Is True, Jerry Coyne attempts to respond to the Creator’s challenge. As one might have suspected, however, this highly acclaimed book doesn’t even have a reference in its index to this key element: origins.

If that is not plain enough, this law says there is zero possibility that life could arise out of a universe that has been totally sterilized by a huge ball of fire that evolutionists call the Big Bang. Dawkins can multiply zero possibility of life by as large a number and in as tiny steps as he can conceive, and the result will still be zero possibility of life. Surely, an Oxford professor knows the elementary mathematical fact that zero times infinity is still zero!

There have been many claims down through the years by government officials, institutions of: "higher learning," legacy press, and others that they "follow the science." This was the claim by many during the time of holding Americans hostage. Anthony Fauci went from "I follow the science" to "I am the science." This did little more than as citizens; we are expected to follow the scientist, not necessarily the science, and definitely not question their pronouncements. Prior to his passing in 2008, popular author Michael Crichton wrote an addendum to his 2004 best-seller, State Of Fear, titled, "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous." Menno De Boer posted the appendix online under the title, "Michael Crichton: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous.' It is an insightful piece, and although not about Climate Change or Covid, it has applications to both:

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

As Crichton points out, it was embraced, advocated for and defended the ruling elites and thought shapers of the day as "science":

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H.G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address this crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

It was social Darwinism, the "science" of eugenics. the belief that we could advance the human species by weeding out and breading out the less evolved in the species. Blacks, Jews, “feeble-minded’ and other “dangerous human pests.” The ideas were exported and acted on by another world leader in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Abandoning science and following the voice of the scientist can be very dangerous and immoral.

https://mailchi.mp/9e42250641a4/thanksgiving-in-the-midst-of-hardship?e=169825fd77  

When it comes to politics, not all on the "Religious Right" are Christians in the biblical sense of being born again. Even less would be in the Evangelical camp. There is quite an assortment, including the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Mormons and others. So, being conservative and a Christian are not necessarily synonymous. Similarly, being an Evangelical doesn't necessarily mean being a Conservative or one who has their worldview shaped by the Scriptures instead of trying to shape the Scriptures to conform to their worldview. These are important distinctions to make for those who read Jon Harris's Federalist article, "How Trump’s Victory Affects The Civil War In Evangelicalism." The article isn't really as much about Trump as it is about celebrity pastors and leaders like David Platt and Russell Moore who desire to maintain the identification of Evangelicals while working hard to push the church to the Progressive left: 

“Over the past decade, a clear political divide has emerged within American evangelical Christianity. Institutional leaders have increasingly aligned their organizations with the leftist ruling class, while many in the pews maintain more conservative views and resist these shifts. Trump’s recent victory has intensified this balancing act for leaders and further deepened the divide within the movement.

“Signaling approval for the left’s cultural dominance while maintaining Religious Right credentials has never been easy. In the 2010s, the strategy was to expand the definition of pro-life to include issues such as racial justice and left-leaning immigration policies. To pick one example among many: McLean Bible Church Pastor David Platt wrote positively, in his 2020 book Before You Vote, about a Christian who cared about the life issue but would not vote for a Republican pro-life candidate. This is the same D.C. beltway pastor who shut down his church for Covid-19 and marched and spoke at a Black Lives Matter-style protest that same year. Platt, along with many evangelical leaders, gave the impression that Christians were expected to push the needle left on a range of issues while pushing right was, at the very least, optional.

“Platt’s signaling against Trump — when he essentially apologized to his congregation for the “hurt” he may have caused related to issues like “racial division and injustice” after praying for Trump — was only possible as long as theoretical lip service was paid to pro-life and pro-family issues. This allowed evangelical elites to project an image of transcending the political divide, when they were in fact choosing a side.”

So far, it seems that "many in the pews maintain more conservative views and resist these shifts" in spite of the pressure from celebrity leaders to embrace Progressivism. How long that will last is anybody's guess.

https://mailchi.mp/09bad725e3b6/why-christians-need-to-talk-about-video-games?e=169825fd77