We are ready to conclude our discussion on redeeming technology with the topic that originally inspired the series: Parenting children within this technological age. Rather than delving into specifics that are soon outdated by rapidly changing technology advancements, the best guidance I can offer is parenting principles that can hopefully transcend any future developments. 

I will order these principles into a fitting acronym TECH: Teach, Emulate, Choose, Help. (Rather than four shorter posts on each, I believe it will be most helpful to combine them all into one resource. Thus, please forgive the lengthy nature of this posting.)

Teach

That we need to teach our children how to navigate technology in healthy and God-honoring ways goes without saying. However, I want to argue that parental teaching in this area requires far more than a few instructional conversations. Simply put, the ubiquity of technology and its influence on our children's lives demands continual guidance from parents. Technology will not leave your kids alone; thus, neither can you. 

This is the parental pedagogy Moses advocates for in Deuteronomy 11, "You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Notice the ongoing and organic nature of parental discipleship. Rather than set aside "class is in session" times of parental teaching, Moses views the entirety of our children's lives—sitting in your house, walking by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise—every moment is a to be viewed as an occasion for discipleship. He even says, "Write (God's law) on the doorposts of your house." The idea is that the entirety of your home and its activities are consecrated to the ways of God.

This persistent commitment to organic instruction is especially true regarding technology. Immediately following this passage, Moses warns God's people to take heed lest they follow the idols of the world around them. Meaning, we teach our children the ways of God to equip them to repudiate the idols of the world around them. Considering my argument that technology and all that it offers has arguably become the greatest idol of our time. Your children will grow up immersed in the ways of this idol, which means they must grow up immersed in your discipleship to combat that idol.

What I am trying to emphasize is that parents do not have the luxury of being uninformed and unintentional about technology's impact on their children's lives. Instead, we must become experts on the topic, vigilantly looking for organic opportunities to teach our children how God expects them to use technology. 

Emulate

Even more significant than teaching your children responsible and Godly technology usage is to become an example for your children to emulate. Notice in the passage cited above that Moses speaks first to parents before discussing parenting, "You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes…" 

God does not bless blatant hypocritical parenting. Because of the divine-ordained power of parents within the covenant family, children will follow their parents' habits even more than their parents' instructions. Our children tend to love what we love, believe what we believe, and practice what we practice far more than they do what we say. 

Parents can create a perfect technology plan for their children's lives, but if they do not embody that plan, children will follow their parents, not their plan. Thus, the most important parenting advice I can offer is to practice what you preach. Become an example for your children to emulate. 

It must be noted that this is not only when your children are watching. Obviously, it is crucial to be exemplary in their immediate presence, but the spiritual nature of the family covenant is such that even when our children are not watching us, we are forming them. For example, the parent viewing online pornography in secrecy is spiritually granting permission for their children to do likewise. 

The best way to disciple our children doesn't begin with our children. It starts with the parent's own discipline and Godliness. We must model what we long to see in theirs, providing a blueprint for our children to emulate. 

Choose 

We teach our children and become models for them to emulate. And then, with those two foundational principles established, parents are faced with a pivotal choice. How will you choose to engage technology as a family? This must be a thoughtful and conscious decision by the parents, so I include it as its own step. 

A generation after the Deuteronomy passage already referenced, God's people face a pivotal choice. Within God's promised land, they are surrounded by competing idols of other nations, and Joshua has a literal come to Jesus moment in Joshua 24, "Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

A definitive choice must be made. Will your house serve the Lord or the surrounding cultural idols, of which technology is one of the most perilous? The most dangerous idols are the unnoticed ones. Those that control us without us even knowing we are being controlled. And this is the nature of our technological age. Everyone is addicted, and nobody recognizes the extent of their addiction. 

For this reason, I urge parents to make a conscious choice in this unconsciously assumed idol. Choose this day whom your family will serve. Will it be the Lord your God or your screens? If it is the LORD, and I highly suggest that be your answer, then there must be a stark contrast between your family and the rest of society. Unfortunately, this is not often the case.

In my experience, many Christian parents have unwittingly chosen to go with the flow of technology. It just is what it is; this is what kids do now; I don't want my kid to be the weird kid; it's easier not to fight that battle—this is the subliminal reasoning of many parents, which is why many families naturally drift into the harmful ways of our culture. I am asking parents to make the intentional choice to be different. 

If so, then you now face another choice: repudiation or integration. Though I will advocate for integration, I also want to affirm those parents who choose repudiation. I do not fault you if you wish to create a fortified family life walled off from technology's madness. There are arguments to be made for raising your children with a screenless upbringing. I remain unconvinced by those arguments, but not enough to fault any parent for that choice.

That said, let me share why we have chosen integration for our home. Practically, I don't think repudiation is sustainable within this world. They will eventually have to engage and use technology, and I prefer to train them in healthy habits while under my care. But biblically, I do not think cultural repudiation is the normative paradigm of cultural engagement. Admittedly, we find Sodom and Gomorrah moments of all-out rejection, but most often, the expectation is the "salt of the earth, light of the world" pattern established by Jesus. God's people are in and among the world, while noticeably different from the world, bearing witness to the way the world ought to be under God's good reign. This, I believe, ought to be applied to the virtual world as well. 

If that is the choice you make for your home, then it will demand a lot of work from the parents. 

Help 

For those parents who choose repudiation, the help they must provide is merely building up walls of protection. If integration is the choice, the help is far more complicated and dependent upon parental intuition and wisdom. Jesus' favorite metaphor for Kingdom growth is plant growth, which is how parents must view their task. Children are seeds of Kingdom potential that should be carefully cultivated. 

Botanists never plant a seed in the wild, with little chance of survival. Instead, growth begins in the perfectly controlled conditions of a greenhouse. However, plants cannot move straight from the greenhouse to their permanent planting because they are unprepared to survive that abrupt transition into harsh conditions. Instead, there is an intermediate stage where the plants are taken outside the greenhouse for a season. Remaining under a watchful eye, they are carefully exposed to real-world hazards to acclimate and prepare for their own survival. 

This is a good picture of parenting children through an integrated approach to technology. In the childhood stage of development, they are secure within the greenhouse of protection. In adolescence, they move outside the greenhouse but remain under the parent's vigilant supervision. Let's discuss both. 

In greenhouse early development, protect at all costs. That does not mean they cannot use screens, but that screen usage is heavily protected. That protection is more than just the content on the screen, which goes without saying. Of course, they must be protected from any harmful content, but the mistake most parents make in this phase is more about the quantity of screen time than the quality. Nothing renders a child more immobile than handing them an iPad or putting them in front of a TV, which is why it is so easy and tempting to use the screen as a digital nanny. But as I have argued repeatedly, it is not just content that can be harmful but the nature of technology itself, which constantly forms us in its own image. Parents will notice that after extended time on screens, children become impatient, irritable, numb, isolated, and so forth. The screen is not a harmless medium and should not be treated as such, especially in the earliest years of development. Therefore, be highly protective of both the quality and quantity of screen usage. 

As children progress into adolescence, it is time for them to move out of the greenhouse protection and begin acclimation to the potential hazards of technology. Again, this is still under the parent's supervision, but they need to experience more freedom and develop healthy habits. The timing of when to give them a phone, computer, social media, etc., is up to the parents and their unique knowledge of their child, but we typically start this when they enter the teenage phase. However, they must not abruptly transition from complete protection to complete independence. Instead, in this intermediate phase, parents implement for their children what I previously suggested we all do for ourselves—place boundaries on the boundless nature of technology and bring exposure to the anonymous nature of technology. Do your research, consult with trusted counsel, and determine the best way to implement boundaries and exposure. 

Beyond these protective measures, there is also the need to proactively cultivate a screenless life. Create rhythms in your family where your teenager experiences life without screens. An easy suggestion would be a screenless sabbath every Sunday. But get creative in showing them the goodness of life without technology's interference. Perhaps most importantly, try to cultivate old-fashioned fun with friends. Unfortunately, this does not come naturally to the rising generation, which is increasingly incapable of connecting outside screens. This will require intentional effort from parents to create wholesome fun and fellowship among peers.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, pray that your teenager gets caught when they misuse technology. No matter how vigilant the parent is, the ubiquity of technology will most likely lead to instances of moral failure. Lament this, but do not fear this. When they fail, panic must not be the response. Instead, capitalize on the broken, softened, fertile ground that comes through hardship. Use their failure as an occasion for the gospel they have heard their whole life to become real and personal. Use their failure as an occasion for instructions they previously disregarded but now welcome. In this way, their failures become a crucial discipleship moment, preparing them for a lifetime of redemptive technology usage. 

In response to our technology discussion, I received a question that I think is worth responding to publicly:

I’m really benefiting from your thoughts on technology, and I appreciate your analysis on how it is affecting us as individuals. But I’m wondering if you have thoughts on the way technology is affecting communities. Specifically, I have in mind church communities. I’m a pastor, and it feels daunting to keep up with all these changes you have outlined. For example, you spoke about how technology is changing people’s expectations of real-world experiences. How people are becoming dull to life, with short attention spans, and needing constant stimulation. Is it right to change our approach to ministry and even worship to fit that? I’m not really sure what I’m asking, but as I listen to all your analysis, it just feels overwhelming to keep up as a pastor.

You can feel the exhaustion in is his question, can’t you? And I think I do know what he is asking. We have an entire society of people trained in the ways of technology, and then they approach churches according to those expectations. They expect Church life to reflect their technological life of constant stimulation, instant gratification, lack of contemplation, and so forth. What do we do? Do we seek to meet those expectations? Does the Christian Church need an overhaul to fit this technological age?

The pastor says it feels overwhelming to keep up. Well, my suggestion is churches do not try to keep up. Instead, let our churches be protesting communities in defiance of the madness of our technological society, offering our world a rival vision for the good life.

I am not against reforms, and I do think appropriate contextualization is essential. After all, the last technological information breakthrough before the internet was the printing press, and God used that technology to bring about the reformation and countless Bibles and theological works printed and circulated. I am not resisting technological change and its implication upon the mission of the Church. But we must not uncritically seek to follow massive changes such that we remake our ancient faith in the image of advanced technology.

The world is not impressed by our attempts to mimic the broader culture. In fact, they find it cheesy at best and downright disingenuous at worst. I liken it to parents trying to be cool. It never works when parents seek to mimic their kids—dress like them, use their vernacular, keep up with their trends, and so forth. What do kids want from their parents? Kids just want their parents to be parents, and they will love them for it.

When churches try to recreate themselves according to changing cultural trends, we are not fooling or impressing anyone. No church will ever be able to compete with the entertainment of Netflix or the stimulation of TikTok’s algorithm, for example. And to try it is as cringy as a parent trying to be cool. But much like kids want parents to be parents, so too, our society does not want trendy churches; they want churches to be churches. It is precisely the fact that our faith communities have something different to offer our weary world that makes our churches necessary and increasingly appealing.

Rather than blindly following our culture, churches can choose instead to lead our culture as prophetic communities bearing witness to the world of a better world. Within the perils of our technological society, there must be the presence of counter-cultural communities inviting the weary to discover another way. And research shows that invitation is gaining appeal. There is growing intrigue, not just with the notion of faith, but specifically the ancient, reverent, and transcendent expressions of the faith.

Our world is increasingly less interested in cheap imitations of what they experience daily. That everyday experience is what they long to escape, even if they don’t have the words to express it. What they seek from religion is that which can be found nowhere else (a discussion for another post is the growing appeal of Islam in the West, not because of Muslim contextualization, but precisely because Islam is a religious protest to the weariness of the Western context).

Therefore, my advice to churches is you be you, because what you are is beautiful and good. Churches cannot match the world’s technological offerings, but the world cannot match what we have to offer: Our holy worship, sacred Scriptures, mysterious sacraments, ancient history, spiritual disciplines and rituals, prayer and simplicity, confession and repentance, and most of all, our gospel of grace in our otherwise graceless society. These are what we offer that is found nowhere else.

What I am arguing is that the “How do Churches keep up with technology” question does not need to be answered. We don’t need to keep up. The Christian mission, though appropriately contextualized, is not supposed to imitate the culture but instead embody a new culture, namely the Kingdom of God. It is a sacred space where the ways and practices of God’s Kingdom are on display, and this is what the world around us is hungering to discover. They don’t need or want to experience a rather poor imitation of what they always experience. They need to experience Christianity in its truest form, which is able to provide all that technology is stealing.

In our technology discussion, I raised significant concerns regarding technological perils, admittedly without offering practical help to avoid these perils. It seems Christians are choosing between two problematic options.

One is to retreat from our technologically dominated culture via a subculture of technological protest. Not necessarily choosing an "ignorance is bliss" posture, but precisely because they are not ignorant of the dangers I have outlined, they see what technology is doing to us, and understandably, they do not want these consequences for themselves and their posterity. While I am sympathetic to this approach, I do not view it as practically possible or principledly suitable.

The other option, which I am far less sympathetic toward, is to simply receive the technological takeover. With uncritical alignment, we adopt the ways of our modern world such that there is no discernable difference between Christians and the rest of society's technology usage. Without making that conscious choice, this is what most Christians are doing, and we are suffering because of it.

If you made me choose between these two, I prefer retreat to receive, but we don't have to make that choice. We could instead choose to redeem. This series is entitled "Redeeming Technology" for a reason. What we are seeking is the use of technology the way God intended. We redeem technology by reclaiming its usage to glorify God and bless creation.

But practically speaking, how is this achieved? There is much to say (I'll go into more depth with practical wisdom when we discuss parenting), but the problem is that much of what needs to be said is answered individually. For example, someone addicted to the envy of Instagram might need to delete the app altogether, but for others, Instagram could be harmlessly used. Thus, advice on technological usage ultimately needs to be answered individually.

However, there are two guiding principles that I wish to apply to everyone. What makes modern technology uniquely powerful? A common theme in all that we have discussed thus far comes down to the boundless and anonymous nature of modern technology. Technology now offers us an increasingly boundless and anonymous virtual world, which is a first for humanity.

There is nothing new about technology. It's fundamental to the quest of image bearers. What is new is the boundless and anonymous essence of our technology. Therefore, these two areas must be the focus of Christian commitments. We must take the necessary steps to place boundaries on the boundless nature of technology and bring exposure to the anonymous nature of technology. If you just implement those two practical steps, it will radically change the nature of your usage and consequently redeem the goodness of technology.

What do I mean by boundaries to combat technology's boundless appeal? You, with the help of trusted community, must be very intentional about screen time usage. Screens are the door to a limitless virtual world, and they will not limit themselves. In fact, they are designed to ensnare you with a limitless offer. Therefore, unlike the real world, which is naturally limited, we must steadfastly limit the virtual world with a thoughtful usage plan.

Currently, my phone is in airplane mode. That is the case for much of my workday. But within my schedule (literally, written down on my calendar), I have time designated to return emails, texts, and even social media. I actually have appointments on the calendar with Twitter because, in my line of work, I need to stay informed on cultural developments and news. Where I need to grow (as my wife has rightly pointed out) is creating the same intentional limits at home that I have established at work. But the point I am making is that although it will look different according to everyone's unique situation, everyone must develop their own boundaries, or you will naturally drift into the boundless. In this way, you are in charge of your screen, not the other way around, which is how God intended technology.

Likewise, we must take steps to bring exposure to the anonymous nature of technology. I don't trust myself to handle anonymity, nor should you. At minimum, my wife knows my phone and account password. In fact, she has passwords for my devices that I do not have, such as those that limit my iPhone content and screen time. Simply put, no part of my online life is closed off and inaccessible to my wife. But I need even more exposure that I have entrusted to my closest friendships.

From my research and experience, Covenant Eyes is the best option for this. It is a monitoring software that gives my friends access to my screen. It will certainly flag any obscene content and send an alert to my accountability partners. But more than protecting me from the more nefarious, my friends can look through my entire report and see how I am spending my time. Am I getting lost in meaningless content, addicted to the trivial, etc.? All of this is incredibly vulnerable, but we were made to live in that vulnerability. Hiding is not good for any, and we must find ways to remove the cloak of anonymity that technology offers us.

In conclusion, rather than a list of Christian rules to follow, I'm boiling it down to just two practical principles. If you intentionally combat modern technology's boundless and anonymous nature, you will naturally use technology well, thus redeeming its purpose.

In our attempt to offer a Christian critique of our technological age, we are exploring the three areas most impacted by the technology of our making. Having explored the consequences upon community and mentality, we turn our attention to sexuality. 

I want to examine the technological destruction of human sexuality in three ways: self, sex, and society.

Self

Proverbs 9 offers a fitting picture of the alluring nature of online pornography, "The woman of folly is loud, she sits at the door of her house calling out to all who pass by, 'Let all who are simple come in, stolen water is sweet, food eaten in secret is delicious…but little do they know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of the grave." 

This is the essence of sexual pleasure within the virtual world of technology. It is an enticing, hidden space of promised pleasure that ends in a symbolic grave. The temptation of pornography has always been much more than physical gratification of sexual urges. Pornography expertly exploits the unmet longings of the human heart. 

It offers a world where the user is no longer insecure but gets to fantasize about being the dominant man or the desirous woman; the user is not lonely but vicariously feels wanted, even worshiped; the user is not bored and discontent with the demands of a mundane and frustrated life but is endlessly stimulated; the user is no longer ashamed because shame is normalized. Therein is the true power of pornography. Not merely the satisfaction of physical urges but the deeper longings of the soul. But this pornographic fantasy was once limited to the fringes of societal life. Now, technology has created a pornified virtual reality for endless over-indulgence. 

But the cruelty of this virtual world is that though it promises to satisfy our shared longings, it only deepens them. In this way, pornography acts the same as any powerful drug. Empty promises, quick dopamine experience, but in the end, never fulfilling. Thus, the user returns to the drug's empty promises until trapped in the downward cycle of addiction, ending in a proverbial grave. That comparison is not an overstatement. Researchers have found striking similarities between the brains of both drug and porn addicts. Only this addiction is not a destruction of the body but the soul. 

Sex

Ironically, the proliferation of virtual sex is leading to the degradation of actual sex. The pornography epidemic is parasitic. It feeds off the goodness of God's glorious gift of sex while twisting it into something unrecognizable from its original design. 

In the early 2000s, feminist Naomi Wolf was ahead of her time in sounding the alarm on the rise of online pornography. She contended that the ubiquity of pornography, far from liberating sex, would eventually subjugate sex to an artificial screen. Contrary to fears that a pornified society would yield ravenous sexual appetites, Wolf argued the opposite. She predicted deadened libido and an increasingly impotent society, “After all, how can real people possibly compete with cyber visions of perfection utterly tailored to the consumer's specification? Real naked people are just bad porn."

When we consider the rise of early erectile dysfunction, oversexualized youth culture desperately trying to compete with pornographic insinuations, the sharp decline, not just in marriage but in actual sexual activity, it is obvious she is being proven true. 

As an anecdotal account of this phenomenon, consider the example of John Mayer, a famous and wealthy musician who has dated many supermodels and even Taylor Swift. And yet, heed his haunting words from a vulnerable interview ironically (or fittingly) with Playboy magazine: 

Internet pornography has absolutely changed my generations expectations. I have unbelievable orgasms alone. They are always the best. Once I have to deal with someone else's desires, I cut and run. When I'm with somebody, I'm in a situation I can't control, because another person's needs are involved. 

The interviewer asks him to clarify, "Are you saying masturbation for you is as good as sex?" He replies: 

Absolutely. During sex I'm just running a filmstrip of porn in my mind. 

I'm still masturbating. That's what you do when you're a part of my generation. So rather than meet someone new, I would just rather go home and have my own amazing experience. I am more comfortable in my own imagination than I am in actual human discovery.

This is what technology is doing to sexuality. We are perverting God's design for sex as a self-sacrificial act of mutual pleasure into a twisted, narcissistic ritual. Real flesh and blood naked humans are losing their appeal because they are demanding, unlike the technological reality of pornography, which has no demands except that my needs are met. 

Society

The ubiquity of pornography's public harm is difficult to quantify. There is much research we could point to—the rising market for human trafficking, sexualization of youth culture, degradation of marriage as an institution, the proven connection between pornography consumption and violence—however, let's consider the two major social issues that have dominated public discourse the past few years. 

I applaud the #metoo movement along with our culture's newfound awareness of sexual predation, but it is shocking how little attention is given to online pornography's role in the abuse epidemic. Nearly every organization and institution has had its #metoo reckoning and exposure, except the very institution that is training us in the ways of sexual assault. 

The percentage of online pornography that depicts sexual violence and aggression is staggering. Who is meeting the demand for this exploitative content? Odds are your neighbor, coworker, family, or perhaps, you. Then, with minds trained according to pornified liturgies, consumers enter the real world with debauched desires and demands. If we are serious about advocating for abuse survivors, then we should probably turn our ire toward the very industry profiting from and perpetuating sexual abuse. 

The other social concern at the forefront of public discussion is, of course, racial justice. In the aftermath of George Floyd, every individual and institution underwent an important evaluation. But, again, the noticeable exception is the pornography industry. While the rest of society wrestles with complicity in hidden racist motives, structural and systemic racism, covert racial injustice, and so forth, pornographers continue to participate and profit in overt, undeniable, wicked racist fantasies. As Dr. Carolyn West, Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Washington, notes, "Over the years, thanks in part to the civil rights activists, overt examples of racism that were once commonplace in mainstream media have become less acceptable. Yet, hidden behind the facade of fantasy and fun, porn delivers racist stereotypes that would be considered unacceptable were they in any form of mass-produced media." 

The only part of social life immune from our country's racial reconning is pornography. It is an industry that turns racism into a sexual fetish, literally pornified white supremacy. And it is not fringe content, with 40% of searches on the internet's largest porn site including racially charged words. Then, alongside the evil of consuming the content itself, the consumer discipled by racist fantasies enters the real world to enact what they have consumed. If black lives truly matter, then we must take a stand against the only area of social life that is still allowed to participate in blatant racism. 

I have just chosen the two areas of injustice receiving the most attention, but I could go on and on about the public harm. We are deceiving ourselves if we think the technological world of pornography only harms the user. It absolutely does harm the user, but then the harmed user harms society. 

What has technology done to human sexuality? It is yielding unprecedented destruction to self, sex, and society.

In our series on technology, we are exploring the three areas of human experience that I argue are most negatively impacted: community, mentality, and sexuality. 

This week’s consideration is our mentality. I mean mentality in its more classic definition—not merely our attitude and mindset, but the totality of our mental life. Jaquez Ellul predicted a technological tipping point, where we no longer control the machines of our own making, but the machines begin to control us. And this, I believe, is what is taking place with our minds. 

The screens we are addicted to are not harmlessly neutral. They are training us what to think and, perhaps more problematically, how to think. The cumulative result is our technology is increasingly becoming smarter while the human mentality is moving in the opposite direction.  

I want to explore this detrimental development in four ways, conveniently organized with the acronym MIND. What our minds now consume is Meaningless, Inexhaustible, Nonchalant, and Depersonalized. 

Meaningless

When I say meaningless, I do not imply that all information on the internet is itself meaningless. I am arguing the vast majority is meaningless to you. And that’s the key. The pedagogy of our technological world encourages a breadth of meaningless information without a depth of meaningfulness. The benefit of the information is our access to endless content, but how much of it is truly pertinent to our lives? Very little. The result is that we simultaneously know virtually everything and very little. At least as it pertains to true knowledge. 

The Bible speaks of knowledge very differently than we do. It is far more than merely data cognitively processed. Instead, it is a deep apprehension, internalization, and application of truth. The clearest example is the Hebraic use of the word: Adam knew Eve. That’s more than a Google search. And it is this essence of intimate knowledge that is being lost. 

It is very telling that we call it browsing the internet because that is exactly what we are doing. We are addicted to browsing a breadth of information while malnourished of knowledge depth. Thus, we are familiar with so much while truly knowing very little. 

Inexhaustible

This meaningless information is also inexhaustible, and we are exhausted trying to consume the inexhaustible. This technological gluttony is not without consequences, as our minds become unhealthy with information overconsumption. Allow me to share a few consequences of our gluttony. 

A central component of our mentality is attention span, and there are countless studies demonstrating how inept our attention is becoming. While human advancement increases, the human focus is plummeting. What is happening to us? Our minds are trained hypertextually, bouncing from link to link and short clip after short clip, rather than normal sequential thought patterns. The problem, however, is that the real world does not operate this way. Our minds, conditioned for a technological world, are not functioning properly in the real world.   

Another negative consequence is our difficulty in making and keeping commitments. There is something more to this than merely a spoiled and entitled generational quirk. Barry Schwarts wrote a paradigm-shaping book called The Paradox of Choice. It is a business book with a simple premise. Giving the consumer too many choices proves counterproductive. Either it will paralyze decision-making, or it will lead to buyer’s remorse over what was not chosen. Similarly, the inexhaustible nature of technology has created a society suffering from the paradox of choice.

Our minds get trained to endless options, and when it comes to making real commitments, we can’t. We view commitment as limiting options, leading to the FOMO (fear of missing out) phenomenon. Or we do commit, but the moment a better option is presented, we quickly break our commitment for the next best thing. 

One more consequence to consider is our social boredom. Have you noticed how joyless, restless, discontent, and even lifeless we are becoming? It is as if we, particularly our youth, simply cannot be impressed anymore. In our next posting on sexuality, we will explore the rise of sexual impotence because real flesh and blood cannot compete with inexhaustible pornographic options. In the same way, real-world experiences are now overlooked by endless thrilling content.

The content on the YouTube channels my children enjoy is, candidly, insane. The trick shots, antics, and crazy scenarios—routinely, my children consume five-minute video compilations of what would be once-in-a-lifetime experiences to witness in the real world. But the problem is a luxury, once tasted, becomes a necessity. What are they to make of real life filled not with exceptional thrills but a whole lot of mundane? 

The point behind each of these examples is that we cannot expect to be gluttons of inexhaustible technological content and have no consequences. 

Nonchalant

The power of technology is not just the availability of inexhaustible information but, more significantly, the ease with which it is organized and accessed. But this remarkable accessibility lends itself to a cavalier relationship with information. Learning has lost its sacredness and is now just a nonchalant endeavor. 

Fascinatingly, nearly one-third of lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy. As sociologists have studied this social phenomenon, they have concluded that those who do not labor for their wealth lack an appreciation for it and do not know how to steward it well. This has similar implications regarding the ease of the information age. With the entirety of human discovery instantly accessible, we are all lottery winners of knowledge.

I think we fail to appreciate how revolutionary this is for humanity. We have bypassed the historic rigors of learning and now have access to whatever we want to know whenever we want to know it. Simply put, striving for answers has become obsolete, but is anything lost when we eliminate the striving? 

My son was recently struggling with his math homework and asked a reasonable question. If he will one day have a device far superior to my iPhone, which will give him any answer to any question, then why must he struggle through homework? That’s not a question we should easily dismiss. If our children will inherit a world of AI able to provide answers at a moment’s notice, why even learn? Because information is not knowledge. It is the striving, labor, and mastery of information that leads to true knowledge. 

Answers should never be nonchalant. In fact, we were not created for answers alone. We were created to search for answers so that we appreciate the answers and know how to steward the answers well. 

Depersonalized 

The most obvious yet overlooked tragedy of our technological society is that we increasingly depend upon machines rather than people. This is fine for inconsequential needs, like driving directions, for example. But when it comes to life’s greater dilemmas, it should give us pause that we are turning to inanimate screens rather than human beings. Google and even AI will never have the indelible mark of an image bearer of God, and when we disconnect information from the uniqueness of God’s image, we set a dangerous precedent. 

We are being taught, trained, mentored, and, in some cases, even parented by the non-sentient technology that cannot replicate attributes we take for granted, such as wisdom, emotions, sensitivity, morality, etc. It’s just raw data. But most often, we don’t need data. We need data filtered through the uniqueness of human personhood. 

For example, you’ve been having persistent headaches. Rather than consulting an actual MD, you turn to WebMD, which provides data void of discernment. Then, minutes later, you are convinced you are dying from a brain tumor. But a human doctor would instantly be able to filter data through context, wisdom, experience, intuition, and training to give you a thoughtful answer, not a depersonalized answer. 

It might seem trivial, but it is a severe modern development. A screen in our pocket has become our trusted counselor, advisor, mentor, and even friend. And even the people we do engage with online are shaped by the technique of technology and thus do not behave online as they would in real life. 

Technology can do so much, but it cannot do image-bearing. AI will seek to imitate it, but it cannot live it with authentic emotions, critical thought, moral judgments, greater purpose, and a host of other things that must accompany information. You don’t need data. You need a human. 

What we now consume via technology is meaningless, inexhaustible, nonchalant, and depersonalized. The result is a new frontier for human mentality, and speaking candidly, it is an alarming frontier. In subsequent postings, I will offer practical wisdom to combat this disturbing social development, but for now, it is enough to simply sound the alarm. 

After establishing a foundational Christian perspective of technology, I wish to turn attention to those areas where technological progress is yielding human regress. What are the most significant negative consequences of our technological age? The first I will address is the collapse of community. 

Statistically speaking, rates of loneliness have reached epidemic proportions, and subsequently, so too have depression, anxiety, addiction, and suicide. Even the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently declared our social isolation a public health emergency. 

What is happening to us?

I want to suggest that technology has fundamentally reordered human relationships in a profoundly detrimental way. Not on the surface. Ironically, technology promised to break the boundaries of community, which it has in many ways. However, we are discovering that the boundaries we have forsaken were necessary for community to truly flourish. 

What is technology’s impact on us relationally? Relationships have become effortless, limitless, narcissistic, voyeuristic, tribalistic, and are therefore increasingly non-existent. 

Effortless

Human beings are created in the image of our triune God, which means we are intrinsically relational. God is one in essence yet in three in person, which means God has forever existed in perfect fellowship within Himself. And we who are created in the image of God bear this indelible attribute. We are relational beings created for community. 

However, the human experience has been corrupted by the fall, and how we do relationships is now fundamentally flawed. The flaw is that I am no longer a selfless relational being but a selfish one. By nature, I seek to take rather than give. But the Trinitarian community is based on selflessness, not selfishness. Each Person of the Godhead gives, but in turn, each likewise receives. There is a big difference between receiving and taking. In the former, you enjoy that which you have already extended to another; in the latter, you demand that which you are unwilling to extend. 

True community patterned after the Trinity is only experienced via selfless giving, not selfish taking. This means there is always a built-in cost to community. But having turned inward by the corruption of sin, we naturally don’t want to bear that cost. We much prefer taking to giving. Do you know what technology, specifically social media, has done? It gives us what we desire, the veneer of community without the built-in demands of relationships. 

Relationships are difficult. You must invest time, earn trust, demonstrate kindness, express interests, and, yes, have actual conversations. Intimacy has always carried an inherent cost. But now, with a simple search, I have bypassed hours of effort and am entirely “let in” on your life. Your vocation, hobbies, opinions, family, vacations, heck, what you ate for dinner (still trying to comprehend food pics)—I can scroll through your life in a matter of minutes.

Therefore, I no longer must bear the burdens of time, commitment, awkwardness, conversations, social norms, pleasantries, and so forth. Historically, Relationships demanded a lot of us, but these costs were necessary for relationships to flourish. Now, these selfless costs have been bypassed. Hiding behind the safety and convenience of our screens, relationships have become effortless, which, in turn, is making us utterly inept at authentic community and its demands. 

Limitless

Consider how many friends and followers you have on social media, or how many contacts you have in your phone. And even those not digitally connected to you can easily find and contact you. Surely, you recognize how unsustainable that is. Access to us now has no limits, which means we are untenably stretched thin relationally. 

Historically, we were constrained by natural physical communal limitations—our town, neighborhood, social circle, etc. This kept the scope of our attachment within a manageable range. The research of Robin Dunbar resulted in the “Dunbar Number,” which argues humans have the capacity for 150 personal connections and deeper intimacy with 30-50 people. According to a Biblical worldview, this is because we are limited creatures possessing limited capacity, time, energy, and so on. But technology has created an ever-growing and unmanageable supply of people with access to me. 

Don’t you feel overwhelmed? Don’t you feel like your time is demanded in an untenable way? Don’t you feel like you’re always letting someone down? An email, a text, a message—there are endless demands we vainly try to meet, while relationships in our life that truly need attention are neglected. Technology has made us available to everyone and everyone available to us, but this is not the way we are made to live, certainly not flourish. 

Narcissistic

Sin always yields self-obsessed. The fundamental flaw of fallen humanity is that we naturally assume the world revolves around us, or at least desire the world to revolve around us. But one of the beautiful benefits of community has always been its ability to wean us off ourselves and recognize the presence and preferences of others. But our technological lives do not draw us out of our self-obsession but reinforce it.  

Consider the platform of social media. It’s disturbing that we so casually use the word platform without pause, but that is indeed what our online lives are. Social media is not community; it is consumption. And what is consumed is the intoxicating thrill of attention. We have created a world with a built-in audience that we constantly try to impress. Facebook calls them friends, which is laughably deceptive. They are not friends but spectators. At least the newer versions of social media are more honest, calling them followers. 

We are not making friends or enjoying community. Instead, we are amassing a following that possesses the social media currency of attention. Within the only attention economy, we don’t exchange money but notifications. Thus, the mechanism of social media is inherently narcissistic. We have created a virtual world that does revolve around me, which is precisely what our fallen nature is craving.

Voyeuristic

What’s interesting about social media is that we are simultaneously on the center stage of our platform and the audience members of other platforms. You see, the flip side of narcissism is always voyeurism. If I am self-obsessed, I become obsessed with others, but not in a good way, in a competitive way. A narcissistic fixation is likewise fixated on how one measures up against the competition. 

We often find ourselves endlessly lost in the details of others, many times people we don’t even know. But we are not viewing them through the lens of love. Instead, we voyeuristically peruse to envy those lives we covet and glee over those lives we condemn. But these sinful tendencies cannot be the basis of community because they are intrinsically divisive and relationally harmful. Despite how it is marketed, social media is not a space for friendship but for competition. Thus, we are lured into voyeuristically stalking our competitors in a zero-sum game for supremacy. 

Tribalistic

The way our individual quest for supremacy manifests communally is we want those like us also to obtain supremacy. The history of sinful humanity is easily summarized as my tribe over your tribe. But again, when technology was limited, that tribal instinct was countered by the presence of real people different than us.

However, we have now created a reality that is almost exclusively tribal, because our it is shaped by algorithms that reinforce our tribalism. The algorithms that dictate what we consume view us as the product, and tribalism is a lucrative business. Therefore, our online existence is controlled by a very precise artificial intelligence able to deliver content (both real and fake) based solely upon the gut-level tribal instincts that control us. 

What is fed to you loves what you love, hates what you hate, celebrates what you celebrate, fears what you fear, and rarely, if ever, contradicts your tribal commitments. Simply put, we exist in a digital echo-chamber.

But community according to God’s design requires us to renounce tribalism, certainly not cultivate it. But my sinful design for community is simply me. I only want to fellowship with people like me, which, in essence, is saying I only like me. This is a denial of the diversity in unity modeled within the Trinity. However, the algorithmic model is not diversity but uniformity. We are essentially fellowshipping with ourselves, which is isolation not friendship. 

Non-existent

If technological community is effortless, limitless, narcissistic, voyeuristic, and tribalistic, then I conclude that community is increasingly non-existent. We come to the great irony of our technological age. Though it promised to be the great breakthrough in relationships, it has become the very demise of relationships. Paradoxically, social media has given rise to the loneliness epidemic. Sometimes, I feel the need to cite statistics, but the research is so overwhelming and indisputable that I don’t need to bore you with it. 

Besides, you know it. You feel it. And you certainly see it in your children and grandchildren. Friendless, socially isolated, insecure, anxious, depressed, suicidal—it is a public health crisis. Nearly 1 in every 4 of our youth say they do not have a single friend. How is that possible? They have hundreds of friends online. The answer is that social media is not friendship. All of it is counterfeit, a cheap imitation of intimacy. 

It is so obvious, yet nobody seems to notice. None of this is real. You are not with a person; you’re with your phone. That is not a real face with authentic expressions; that’s an emoji. You are not talking; you’re messaging. All of it is counterfeit. And though we may not notice this obvious fact, we most certainly are feeling it. We are a society with happy online lives who hate their real lives.

In follow-up postings, I will offer practical wisdom to combat this crisis, but allow me to conclude with a word of hope into the bleakness. To our friendless society, I proclaim a Savior who is a Friend of sinners. His parting words followers, “No longer do I call you servants…I call you friends.” The God of the universe wants to be your friend as well. Not because Your carefully curated online life fools him. He is not fooled. He sees all that you hide from your followers. But in the greatest news, the one who knows it all still wants to be your eternal friend. Even more, in the ultimate act of friendship, Jesus dies for the friends he loves. May the friendship of God fill the void we are vainly trying to fill with our counterfeit communities. 

Arguably, the most frequent questions I receive are somehow related to technology. From parenting to personal usage, our technological age's enveloping and ever-increasing nature leaves many of us bewildered at best and perhaps utterly overwhelmed at worst. We are desperate for a robust and relevant Christian approach to technological progress, which will be the aim of this series. 

By way of introduction, I will begin very broadly with a Christian theology of technology. In the most basic sense, technology is the word we use to describe a central component of what God created humanity to do. 

In Genesis 1, God's original design for us is explained, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.'"

What does it mean to be created in the image of God? Unlike other creatures, we share certain attributes with our Creator. Love, morality, reasoning, the pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness—these are exclusive to the image-bearer experience. 

Now, an important manifestation of God's shared attributes is technology. We have the capacity to create like our Creator. Obviously, our creations are not ex nihilo; instead, we are stewards of God's creation, teeming with undiscovered potential, from which we cultivate order, innovation, progress, and so forth. 

But notice image bearers are under a mandate to "Fill the earth and subdue it." The original plan was for image bearers to fill creation and rule and reign on God's behalf. Meaning, all we do, including the technology we produce, should bring glory to God and good to creation. 

However, this plan goes awry with the sinful fall of image bearers who by nature now follow a new mandate—not God's glory rendering blessing of creation, but our glory unto the harm of creation. In this way, our technology now follows this fallen mandate. Thus, human progress is always a precarious endeavor. 

French Philosopher Jacques Ellul, the preeminent scholar on technology, argues the singular goal of technology is always efficiency. Before the fall, technological efficiency was inherently virtuous, as it would overcome our limitations to fulfill our God-given mandate. However, post-fall, technology can now overcome our limitations to spread sin's destruction. 

Regarding the morality of technology, ethicists argue its value is determined instrumentally. If used for moral good, it is morally virtuous, but if used for evil, it becomes immoral. However, it is wrong to conclude that technology is thus neutral. While our technology may be morally neutral, its users are not. If the Christian tradition's diagnosis of humanity is correct, then we are inherently bent toward sinfulness. Thus, Ellul contends that the arc of technological advancement in the hands of sinners bends toward more harm than good. 

Sinful destruction is curbed by natural limitations, but the efficiency of technology increasingly overcomes these limitations. If the only weapons available in the current Israel/Palestine conflict were swords and spears, then naturally, the violence would be minimized. But via modern weapons technology, death and destruction are magnified exponentially. And this sinful efficiency can be applied in every realm of technological advancement.  

However, it is also important to consider not just the harm the user perpetuates via technology, but also the harm technology inflicts upon the user. The fundamental disposition of the fall is our refusal to worship the one true God, and instead, we craft idols to satisfy our worship instinct. We must worship. If not God, then we choose for ourselves idols. And worship always yields obedience because we inevitably serve what we adore. For example, if money is our idol, we will spend our lives in service to money. 

Along these lines, we must consider the idolatrous way we approach human advancement. We have always worshiped our own progress, but in a secular age that has rejected God and transcendence, the glory and greatness of human achievement has become preeminent. Thus, as Ellul predicted, we do not just worship our advancements but also live in service to them. 

We are no longer independent masters of the machines we create; the machines now master us. Ellul's word for this is technique. The technique of humans more than the technology of humans is the truest danger. Technique is the milieu that technology creates, which has fundamentally remade humanity such that we live in service to the technology we have created. 

There is a lot of concern surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) right now, understandably so. The greatest fear being a tipping point of self-awareness, leading to a dystopian future where humans are enslaved by the technology of our own making. But Ellul would argue we have passed that tipping. Though not yet sentient, our technology is still in charge. 

For example, the internet was created, in part, to increase human productivity, but does anyone feel more productive? In theory, the internet should aid productivity, but instead, we spend hours upon hours in endless, pointless, wasteful neglect of our precious time. Ironically, the only way to now be productive is to avoid the internet. Simply put, we are slaves to the very screens created to serve us. 

I am not a technology alarmist, but we must sound the alarm. These are unprecedented times, and the unprecedented harm is exponentially advancing, as Ellul predicted. 

What should be the Christian response? It seems we have three options. We could retreat. Within protesting subcultures of technological regress, we could return to the old ways of doing things before technology achieved its pervasive influence. But for most, this is not practically possible. Nor is it biblically faithful to the moment where God has us. The other option is to simply receive. With an uncritical alignment, we receive and adopt the ways of our modern world such that there is no discernable difference between Christians and the rest of society. Without making that conscious choice, it seems this is what most Christians have chosen and are suffering because of it.

But there is another way between retreat and receive. We can redeem. Remember, technology itself is morally neutral, and its value is determined instrumentally. I believe Christians ought to be the ones who redeem technology by using it the way it was originally conceived, with glory to God and blessings to the world. Navigating this redemptive path is not easy in our ever-increasing technological society, but redemption is always worth it. The aim of this series is to offer redemptive guidance so that Christians are equipped to reclaim the usage of our technology for God's glory and creation's good.

We conclude our defeater ethics series with the moral objection lurking behind the other objections previously addressed. Though manifesting in different ways, the common theme has been the failure of Christians to faithfully represent their Christ. Let's discuss the issue of Christian hypocrisy.

This objection was famously summed up in one sentence by Mahatma Gandhi, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." Repeatedly, this is the dilemma we have navigated. Perhaps our neighbors would like our Christ, but they do not like our (abusive, racist, misogynistic, name your moral objection) Christians.

First and foremost, the Bible itself would not shy away from the accusation. The Bible is one story of one history revealing the glory of Jesus. To do this, it must be honest. The gospel of Christ's salvation cannot be told while hiding humanity's desperate need for that salvation. Therefore, with, at times, uncomfortable honesty, the Scriptures tell the bitter truth of our depravity and desperation for a Savior. In some ways, I like your Christ, but not your Christians is the entire point of the Christian faith. Not that Christians should give up our quest for Christlike emulation, but we do so with the humble admission that Christ alone is our only boast.

If the presence of hypocrisy immediately disqualifies, then what is qualified? Every organization, institution, philosophy, and, yes, religion is replete with flawed and hypocritical membership. The difference is that all of them demand we hide our hypocrisy and fake competency. Except for Christianity, the unconventional faith tradition with an invitation everyone is longing to accept: Confession. 

Confessing what you hide and deny is the entrance into the Christian faith. Every religion expects the opposite. Prove your worthiness. Jesus demands we confess our unworthiness. In this way, Christianity turns the notion of religious hypocrisy on its head. A basic definition of hypocrisy is failure to believe and practice the convictions we claim. But what if the conviction we claim is not worthiness but unworthiness? This means that hypocrites are now those unwilling to admit hypocrisy. If Christianity is a religion where only the unworthy are worthy, then those who present themselves as religiously worthy are the true hypocrites.

Aversion to Christian misbehavior is understandable, but is it a warranted objection to the Christian faith? Nothing is less Christian than self-righteous religious hypocrisy because it presents Christianity like every other religion where worthiness must be proven. Consider Matthew 23, a scathing rebuke from Jesus against religious hypocrites who "…are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness." In this, Jesus affirms your disdain for those who posture themselves as morally superior but, in reality, are no better than anyone.

But Jesus' agreement then becomes a challenge. He would agree that self-righteous hypocrisy is horrific, but that's not his religion, so why are you judging it as such? Ironically, the objection can easily become another form of religious self-righteousness. You may perceive yourself as morally superior to those terrible Christian hypocrites, but the gospel of Jesus confronts this as well. Are you willing to confess you are just as sinful as the Christians you condemn?

If you are strong, independent, self-sufficient, trusting in your moral superiority, perhaps even against all those religious people, then Christianity is not the religion for you. There are many religions that will affirm that self-reliant tendency, including secular new-age spirituality, which is merely therapeutic self-righteousness. Find myself, accept myself, love myself, my truth is my truth, my morality is my morality, and how dare you imply anything is wrong with me? Is this not merely self-righteous individualism?

There are plenty of religions and philosophies that will affirm the self-righteousness tendency within us all, but Christianity is not one of them. Christ demands we come clean and confess the truth of our profound unworthiness, and deep down, every single one of us longs to accept that demand. Aren't you exhausted? Aren't you so tired of hiding your flaws and faking your way through life? I believe you are dying to confess, and Jesus alone accepts that confession. It is our unworthiness that makes us worthy of Jesus. In this way, Jesus is offering the counterintuitive invitation to give up the charade of self-salvation and confess your need for his salvation.

Although Gandhi claimed to like our Christ, I'm not sure he fully understood our Christ. Gandhi was a student of Buddha's teachings, and Buddha's dying words were, "Strive without ceasing." If this is the nature of Gandhi's spirituality, then I doubt he would like a Christ whose foremost demand is that we give up our vain strivings. As for me, I'm all in on Jesus and his dying words, "It is finished."

With Jesus alone, your hypocrisies don't make you a hypocrite. Instead, they are your qualifications for a Savior and his finished salvation that can handle a flawed failure like me and, yes, like you.

Our defeater ethics discussion turns its attention to what is, for many, the most sensitive and significant moral objection to the Christian faith. For reasons we will discuss, the moral failings of Christian parents represent a uniquely substantial barrier to their progeny continuing the legacy of faith entrusted to them. This topic requires a level of sensitivity I cannot offer here, so I would encourage those traumatically impacted by parental failure, perhaps even abuse, to listen to the more qualified long-form discussion I provide on the podcast.  

God ordained the family in general, and parenting specifically as the most formative influence on earth, and social research continually reinforces that Biblical truth. Within pre-fallen conditions, this unrivaled parental power was destined to cultivate a perfect world. Sinless fathers and mothers in perfect unions, obeying the command to be fruitful and multiply, stewarding their divinely appointed influence to bless creation generationally—this was God's perfect plan. 

The problem, however, is the plan would not endure one generation before its demise. But the formative power of the parents did not fall. Parental authority retained its power, but that power in the hands of sinful parents is now corruptible and potentially destructive. This is why the Bible speaks of sin's impact generationally. God warns of sins visiting children and even children's children. That does not mean God will vengefully punish grandchildren for the evils of grandparents. Instead, one generation's sins form the next, which then forms the next, and in this way, sinful patterns tend to manifest generationally via the formative power of parenting. Hurt people hurt people. That is always true, but especially true within family systems.

This is why I'm arguing that out of every moral objection to the Christian faith, the moral failure of parents is probably the most significant. It only makes sense that a child would associate God with their parents because that is God's original intent. Thus, if your parents have harmed you, especially in God's name, you will naturally want nothing to do with their God. In fact, rejecting their faith is, in many ways, becomes your strongest protest against their harm. 

But there is a better way to respond to your parent's failures, a response accompanied by God's promise that "it will go well with thee." The health you seek is not found in rebelling against the God of your heritage but in obedience to God's command to "Honor your father and your mother." Before you dismiss it, let me explain it.

We who inhabit an individualistic society typically view the family as a collection of individuals who happen to share the same name. Biblically (and still in more traditional cultures), the family is viewed as a covenantal unit. Rather than loosely connected individuals, we are smaller parts of a much greater whole. Put more simply, Americans focus on the first name, but the Bible focuses on the last name. Therefore, when we hear the call to honor father and mother, we think of those two individuals (Robert and Abby), but the Bible has in mind honoring what those two individuals represent and steward (Cunningham).

The command to honor father and mother is a call to honor your family name. This interpretation changes everything because what if parents, as individuals, are bringing dishonor to the family name? In this case, to honor them is never to ignore and certainly not enable their dishonor. Rather, it is to do for them that which they have failed to do and redeem the honor of your family name. In a healthy family, the call to honor father and mother is to carry on their noble legacy and even improve upon it. And healthy parents would welcome and celebrate that.

In an unhealthy family, the call is to end the unhealth. Your new path might be perceived as a threat because it forces them to face the shame of their failures. But the honor of their name is more important than their opinion. You are the one who is determined to break generational curses, sins, addictions, and perhaps even abuse, thus rescuing the family from its dishonor. In this way, you honor them by rewriting their legacy.

It will not be easy. After all, you are taking a stand against generationally embedded patterns. So, you will need help. Not just help but salvation. You need a Savior who has the power to set the captives free, break the generational chains, who can and will rescue and redeem your story. What if the Savior you are rejecting because of your parents is the only hope of breaking free from your parents? Certainly, you can try it on your own. Harden yourself to your upbringing, suppress or even repress the past, and move forward in the strength of your independence, determined not to repeat your parents' failures. But if what I'm saying is true, these generational sins are too strong for you. It may manifest differently in your life, but eventually, you will come face to face with this sobering reality: The very thing you hated in your parents is being repeated in your story.

Or there is another way. And Jesus is that way. He has the power to forgive you of your sins and to heal and free you for the ways you have been sinned against. Don't give up on Jesus because of your parents. Show your parents the true Jesus. They may thank you for it or hate you for it, but either way, you will honor them for doing it.

Don't despise your father and mother, lest you repeat the sins of your father and mother. Instead, through Jesus, forgive your father and mother, honor your father and mother, and in so doing, you will redeem the name of your father and mother.

In this month's op-ed contribution, Robert argues for pro-life advocacy from the perspective of a progressive worldview. You can read the op-ed here →.

As a reminder, these contributions will be online and printed in Bowling Green Daily News, Claiborne Progress, Frankfort State Journal, Harlan Enterprise, Middlesboro News, The Advocate-Messenger, The Interior Journal, The Jessamine Journal, and The Winchester Sun. Please read and share!

In our last post, I addressed the ethical dilemma of Christian misogyny by admitting its complexity. Christianity has both perpetuated misogyny and offered the most significant protest against it. The answer will be equally complicated as we turn to our next defeater ethic. As racial justice continues to permeate public discourse, Christianity’s racial sins remain in the spotlight with an exposure that disqualifies the Christian faith for some.

I have no interest in suppressing Christianity’s lamentable history in this area. Christians were once ardent defenders of American slavery and segregation, providing religious support to institutionalized evil. This is a historical fact that we cannot in good conscience deny. However, there is more to the story. While it is undeniably true that Christianity has perpetuated racism, it is equally undeniable that Christianity has been racism’s greatest enemy.

Human history tells the story of tribalism competing for supremacy. Sinners want supremacy, both for themselves and their tribe. And those who gain supremacy, exercise that superiority in evil ways. Any honest assessment of history shows this to be normative. America’s declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” may be self-evident to us, but it is not historically self-evident. Tribal, national, cultural, and racial supremacy, and the subsequent subjugation of those deemed inferior, has always been the self-evident reality of this fallen world.

How did we then arrive at the norm of liberty and justice for all? It all started with a Messiah who began his campaign by opening a scroll and declaring, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.” And then the followers of this Messiah formed a community unlike anything the world had ever known. Religions had always followed the predictable lines of tribal and cultural divides and were, therefore, always married to the sinful quest for superiority. Thus, the ancient world did not know what to make of these followers of Jesus and their communities where “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus gave way to a peculiar religious movement that overcame historical boundaries with a counterintuitive ethic of neighbor love rather than neighbor domination.

This movement eventually reordered human affairs such that all created equal with unalienable rights has become preeminently self-evident. If you prefer a world that seeks to repudiate racism and eradicate slavery, then thank Christianity. Again, I am not denying there were no glaring hypocrisies along the way. In fact, one of the most significant obstacles Christian abolitionists faced was fellow Christians. For example, in 1780, the New Jersey Gazette hosted a series of essays publicly debating the issue of slavery. And what’s fascinating about the debate is that both sides invoke the Bible to prove their point. But Christian duplicity aside, the greater arc of the Christian movement bends towards justice.

Nowhere is this more evident than among the very ones who were oppressed. If Christian slave owners wanted to maintain a world where slave labor was acceptable, they should have never introduced their slaves to Jesus. Granted, they tried to control that introduction. Through illiteracy, they kept slaves from reading the whole council of God and instead offered selective sermons and proof texts that never threatened slavery’s institution. But once you let the Lion of Judah out of the cage, Jesus begins to roar.

One might expect the enslaved to hate the religion of their enslavers, but the opposite happened. The oppressed found hope in Jesus, who is familiar with suffering and acquainted with grief and sets the captives free by humbling the proud and exalting the lowly. Christian slave owners unwittingly let Jesus loose on their plantations, and Jesus, in turn, devoured their religious hypocrisy. The oppressed discovered that Jesus was actually on their side. So, they started praying prayers for deliverance, singing songs of deliverance, and gathering to worship beneath the good news of deliverance. If racism is your reason to reject Jesus, do not bring that objection to the Black Church tradition. They will tell you the story of Jesus, the Savior of their souls, and their story.

Why did those in opposition to civil rights bomb black churches? Why not black restaurants, schools, sporting events—why churches? Because they knew the movement found its fire within those sacred walls. If they wanted to stop the march of justice, they knew they needed to stop those churches. But they couldn’t because the Christian gospel of love is unstoppable.

Consider MLK with echoes of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “Do to us what you will and we will still love you. We will match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we will still love you…Throw us in jail, and as difficult as that is, we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children and as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators and violence into our communities at the midnight hours and drag us out on some wayside road and beat us and leave us half-dead and we will still love you. But be assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. And one day we will win our freedom but we will not only win freedom for ourselves. We will so appeal to your heart and your conscience, that we will win you in the process. And our victory will be a double victory.”

Amen. Jesus and his command to love neighbors and enemies alike cannot be stopped. It transformed our world, and its transformation continues to this day. Once again, I am not denying glaring hypocrisies along the way. But if Christianity’s complicity in racism disqualifies Christianity, then we are surrendering the very faith tradition that has resourced racism’s demise. One might argue that we can simply borrow the Christian ethic while rejecting Christ himself. That, it seems, is what our society is attempting to do. But this is proving to be an unsustainable option because, in so doing, we have forfeited the moral foundation and spiritual power.

Without God, there is no ultimate Judge nor standard of justice, and we are left with this vexing dilemma: Why is racism wrong? What’s wrong with my tribe over your tribes? What’s wrong with the strong of this world dominating and exploiting the weak? In a world of pitiless indifference, governed by selfish genes and survival of the fittest, this is precisely what we should expect and even pursue. But Jesus sees it differently. Jesus says what is natural to sinful humanity is not good for humanity. My invitation is to follow Jesus and devote yourself to the counterintuitive ethic of selfless love that has transformed the world as we know it, with more transformation yet to come.

We continue our series defending the beauty and goodness of God by addressing the defeater ethic of Christianity's alleged misogyny. As our society continues to wrestle with the importance of female equality, a question I have received several times is whether Christianity is an anti-woman religion that has likewise perpetuated anti-woman sentiments.

If I am asked to discuss whether Christians have been misogynistic, the answer is admittedly complicated at best and downright lamentable at worst. In many instances, there is no answer to give except a heartfelt apology. But do these actions align with the Jesus Christians claim to follow? Repeatedly in this series, I have admitted that we are often very poor representatives of Jesus. But thankfully, the Christian faith does not depend upon the faithfulness of the followers of Jesus but upon Jesus himself.

I have no problem commending and celebrating Jesus and his treatment of women. Far from being anti-women, Jesus was revolutionary in his treatment of women and, in return, launched a revolution that rescued women from the long-standing bondage of misogynic oppression that dominated human history until Jesus changed human history. Jesus and the movement he established fundamentally remade the female experience in a world with very little category for female personhood, freedom, rights, consent, and even equality with men. This was not the norm until Jesus shattered the norms.

Before discussing the life of Jesus, we need to understand the design of Jesus. Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Here we see both male and female created in God's image, thus equally worthy of honor and dignity. We who live in a society formed by Christian ethics and assumptions take female equality for granted, but we shouldn't. Historically speaking, women were not viewed as equal to men. They were chattel, commodities exploited and subjugated by male domination. And this was justifiable because societies genuinely viewed women as inferior to men. But according to the Bible, women are intrinsically the image of God. Then, as the design further unfolds, we see that not only are women equal as image bearers, they actually surpass men in some ways.

In Genesis 2, God forms his image by first fashioning Adam from dirt like every other living creature, but then God breathes divine life into Adam such that he is now alive in a way different from animals. Adam is now God's image. But again, male and female are God's image, so we would expect God to repeat the process with Eve. Instead, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon the newly formed image bearer, and out of his side forms Eve. The female image bearer is the only living creature formed not from dirt but from God's image, and that imagery has profound significance.

The poetic creation song of Genesis crescendos to the highpoint of God's image, but even further, the highpoint of Eve's creation. She is the apex of God's creative masterpieces, the loveliest creature in all creation. Adam is the root; Eve is the blossom. Adam is the strong foundation nobody notices; Eve is the glorious architecture we marvel over. African Christianity says men are the skeletal system, and women are the skin's beauty. From the beginning, we see that women are not only equal to men but transcend men with innate glory.

However, the fall of Genesis 3 brings harmful disorder to gender. Creation is now subject to the sinfulness of image bearers rather than the righteousness of image bearers, and the consequence of this sinful dominion given to Eve is the haunting decree, "He shall rule over you." Male strength is now profane and abusive. And historically speaking, that is what has tragically transpired in our world. Male dominance is the story of human history, which also unfolds in the Bible's history.

The Bible is a brutally honest and uncomfortable book detailing the devastation of sin in the world. We find polygamy and predation not just in the story's villains but notably in the story's heroes, like Abraham, David, and Solomon. It is the same patriarchal abuse as the rest of human history. But we must never forget that the Bible is often descriptive, not prescriptive. In sharing these shameful details, the Bible is not prescribing such behavior but describing it in a painfully vulnerable way. Like a gritty film or novel, the main characters make poor choice after poor choice as we watch their lives unravel into ruin. The point of honest storytelling is not emulation but repudiation. The Bible teaches us to learn from the folly of its character's destruction, only with one exception. There is one story of one life the Bible holds out as a prescriptive model to admire and emulate, and that life is Jesus.

It is impossible to overstate how counter-cultural Jesus was in every regard, but perhaps most notable was his treatment of women. In his day, women held a status barely above a slave's. Much like children, they were expected to be unassuming, unassertive, and to serve in humble submission. Basic rights were also withheld, such as testifying in court or participating in worship. But this is not the picture that emerges in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which is precisely the point.

The life of Jesus tells an entirely different story, which, though now customary, was radically different from the customs of his time. He welcomed women as friends, fellowshiping with them publicly and privately. Even the promiscuous and prostitutes who were sorned and cast off by society found friendship with Jesus. He broke every cultural norm because he was more committed to the original norm of transcendent female glory in Genesis, which makes sense of another curious characteristic of Jesus. Not only do we see women treated with equal dignity, Jesus commends them to us as exemplary.

The gospels are not kind to the male disciples. They appear faithless and foolish, which is why they often receive Christ's rebukes. In contrast, you cannot locate a story where women come across this way, with the only exception being Martha, who is corrected for not acting like Mary. Consistently, women are present as a not-so-subtle discipleship example for the disciples to learn from. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the culminating events of Jesus' death and resurrection. While the disciples cowardly abandon Jesus in his arrest and crucifixion, the women courageously remain. And in the most shocking detail, contextually speaking, of Jesus' story, the original witness and testimony of the resurrection upon which our faith rises or falls was entrusted to women. Truly, it is astounding how counter-cultural the gospels are compared to the female experience in that day.

Then, after the assumption of Jesus, the revolution he founded remade the world as we know it with cultural norms that treat women the way Jesus treated women. While I have admitted that individual Christians have failed in this area, Christianity as a whole also launched the first sexual revolution with a different solution to the same dilemma our current revolution seeks to remedy. Our sexual revolution is philosophically grounded in feminism, which argues for the equality of the sexes by offering women the freedom of promiscuity always enjoyed by men.

But there is another way to advocate for equality, which was at the heart of Christianity's sexual revolution. Rather than 'liberating' women, it restrained men. Men are no longer allowed to exploit, abuse, and subjugate women as objects of their gratification. Women, as image bearers, have agency and rights, including the right to consent. The notion of consent that we rightly celebrate in our society is fundamentally a Christian ideal. And so the Christian revolution essentially left men with two choices: celibacy or fidelity. Men can choose between no sex or sex within a lifetime covenant until death. As Glen Scrivener says, Christianity reached down into history and grabbed men by the testicles. In this way, the original sexual revolution achieved equality via chastity rather than promiscuity.

Have Christians always been faithful to Jesus and his ways? Of course not. Repeatedly, we have failed to treat women the way Jesus treated women, and this deserves our utmost contrition. But the underlying argument of this series is not our goodness but the goodness of God. Thankfully, the truth and beauty of the Christian religion do not depend upon the faithfulness of its adherers but the faithfulness of its founder. Candidly, unlike other religious founders who notably used their power to exploit women for selfish pleasure, this accusation cannot be raised against Jesus. Instead, Jesus is the most pro-woman force the world has ever known.

While intending to move on to our next defeater ethic, I received a request for more practical guidance on the intersection of Christianity and politics: "I have really enjoyed your teaching on politics, but I was wondering if you might offer some more practical guidance on the issue. Isn't politics still important? Doesn't God care who I vote for? I don't want to have the political idol you spoke about, but what's a healthy way for Christians to do politics? I would really appreciate some practical thoughts if you have them?"

This is a fair question, considering my proclivity to focus on ideology at the expense of practicality. Therefore, allow me to offer some more practical guidance on the topic.

The idea of moral neutrality in the political realm is a myth. Separation of Church and state is wrongly interpreted as the separation of religious views and state, as if elected officials are expected to divest themselves of worldview presuppositions, whether religious or some other philosophy. This is simply preposterous. Everyone is attempting to enact legislation according to their vision of a properly ordered society, and the Christian obviously wants that vision to reflect the Christian worldview. I can reject Christian nationalism and an established Church-state while also wanting our government's legislation to reflect what I believe is the truth, beauty, and goodness of Christianity, just like my neighbors want the government to reflect their deeply held beliefs. This is expected in a free democracy of competing ideas and philosophies, all seeking to find their views reflected in the halls of political power.

The question then becomes, how can the Christian engage in this arena of competing worldviews without being owned by the competition? How can we be faithful in our political responsibilities without falling into political idolatry? In many ways, that is answered by the conviction of God's Spirit and the faithful counsel of our community, but I will offer three practical thoughts that can perhaps serve as a diagnostic test of sorts.

First, a healthy Christian relationship with politics recognizes that though our faith has political implications, it must not have a partisan identity. Christians are free to believe that a particular political party best represents their views and consistently vote that way. Conversely, they can believe a party is antithetical to their views and never vote that way. However, the Christian is not free to believe and act as though the Christian faith perfectly aligns or, worse yet, is beholden to one political party. 

We must reject a truncated view of Jesus that fits neatly into our two-party partisan divide. In the passage referenced in our last posting, the Herodians and the Pharisees conspired together against Jesus. These two groups were fierce political enemies, but they joined as friends against Jesus. This tells us that Jesus threatened both sides of the political divide in his day. And we must continue to present Jesus this way. Though both sides try to claim Jesus as a commodity for votes, we must declare in the strongest possible terms that King Jesus is not for sale. We will vote our Christian conscience, which may or may not benefit a party or politician, but make no mistake, Jesus reigns transcendent over all earthly powers and systems.

The litmus test of a non-partisan faith comes down to consistency and commonality. First, we must consistently critique both sides, not just the "other" side. Idolatry is never consistent. We blindly protect the idol by deflecting and justifying the idol while fixating on problems away from the idol. This we must not do. Our critique and rebuke must be bipartisan in its application. Second, we must test our commonality. Do we share more in common with those who do not share our religious commitments but do share our political commitments? Worse yet, do we question other's religious commitments if they do not hold our political commitments? If so, we must seriously ask whether politics has, in fact, become our religion.

The second practical assessment of a healthy Christian relationship with politics is a deemphasis on federal politics in favor of local politics. It seems to me that political idolatry tends to always manifest itself federally. This is because pundits and algorithms train us to direct our obsession nationally. But the often neglected reality is that what happens on the state and local level is far more significant to a community's common good and moral order than anything taking place in Washington, D.C. The surest sign that we genuinely believe politics are significant, elections matter, and therefore Christians have a civic duty to participate, is that our concern would be disproportionately focused locally rather than federally. The fruit of a properly ordered relationship between Christianity and politics is a county before country political approach.

The third practical test is to acknowledge the limits of the state by, first and foremost, being the change we long to see. Returning once again to Abraham Kuyper's sphere sovereignty, Kuyper argues that different spheres, though certainly connected, must be delineated in such a way that the unique integrity of the sphere is preserved. For example, for the family sphere to flourish, it cannot function like the business sphere, and vice versa. When we expect a sphere to be something it is not intended to be or operate in a way it is not intended to operate, we sabotage the sphere. This is a massively important principle to remember when approaching the sphere of politics. We have so politicized the Christian mission that we cannot imagine cultural transformation without the coercive power of the state. But this is asking politics to be something it was never designed to be. The government's role is to protect the Church's ability to accomplish its task, and the Church's role is to use that liberty to cultivate a righteous and just society, but political idolatry merges these two spheres together in problematic ways.

Therefore, a healthy indicator of a proper relationship between the Christian and politics is that private activism far exceeds political activism. This, I hope, is reflected in the work of Christ for Kentucky. We are currently working on several significant projects for our state, but only one involves the sphere of our state government. For that project, I have spent time in Frankfort meeting with political leaders, hoping to see it enacted. But in all our other work, we are not asking for the government's permission or relying upon the government's power. Instead, we are making use of our First Amendment freedom to strategize and mobilize Christians in our state to sacrificially give their lives to initiatives for God's glory and the good of their Kentucky neighbors.

Practically speaking, what does a healthy relationship between Christianity and politics look like? Our faith has political implications without a partisan identity; we deemphasize federal politics in favor of the much more consequential local politics; we recognize and respect the government limits by being the change we long to see.

I am going to be writing a monthly Christian perspective that will be syndicated in several smaller publications across our state. Those include Bowling Green Daily News, Claiborne Progress, Harlan Enterprise, Middlesboro News, The Advocate-Messenger, The Interior Journal, The Jessamine Journal, and The Winchester Sun. Additionally, my column will be published online at Bluegrass Live.

Part of the vision behind this is to not only to disseminate my Christian commentary across Kentucky but also to support these smaller market publications with print subscriptions and online traffic. I’m not one to ask for my writings to be shared, but in this case, that is my request. They will be published at the beginning of each month and we will post a link on the blog. It would mean a lot if you would be willing to likewise share (only if you think my opinion is worth sharing, I suppose) with your friends and social media feeds. You can share the link from Bluegrass Live, but even better, if you live in the market of one of the papers, share it from their website to give them the traffic (none of these require a subscription, but you will have to deal with ads). Also, consider subscribing to your local newspaper!

For now, here is a link to my introductory opinion piece. 

Thanks for your support!

Robert

In addressing the objection to political idolatry within American Christianity, I offered an apology and history of the complicated relationship between religion and politics in America. However, a more proactive response to the divisive topic is needed, particularly in American society, where the intersection of religious beliefs and political power is unavoidable. The government is, by definition, in the business of legislating morality, and a free democratic society presents a (good) competition over whose moral vision will be legislatively imposed. Christians are not the only demographic who want the rules of society to align with their worldview. This is the rightful desire of every concerned citizen. Therefore, political idolatry is inexcusable, yet some form of political ideology is unavoidable. Let's consider a politically charged passage of Scripture to find the balance. 

From Mark 12, "And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians to trap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, 'Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?'" 

Besides the financial burden, the Jewish population despised paying Roman taxes because it was a reminder of their oppression. In fact, there was strong debate over whether it was a violation of their religion even to pay taxes to Caesar. The Pharisees and Herodians were on different sides of that political debate, but tellingly, political enemies came together against Jesus. And his response reveals not just his political philosophy but his very world-changing strategy. 

Jesus takes a denarius and asks them, "Whose image is this?" They say Caesar's. He responds, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." In this, Jesus deescalates the political debate by dethroning the significance of the state. Regarding the Roman Empire, he has a confidant, even cavalier attitude, saying essentially, "Let Caesar have his silly little tax. I'm not threatened by that in the least." We think politics are so significant that the world hangs in the balance of political outcomes, but Jesus seems almost indifferent to the political controversies of his day. He has no problem peacefully operating within the systems of society, not because He is subject to or fearful of them, but because Jesus is simply unthreatened by them. He is politically transcendent.

Then, more significantly, Jesus says, "Render to God the things that are God's." We discover our Christian political philosophy and cultural strategy when we answer the question: What belongs to God? Biblically, there are two answers. 

The first and most obvious answer is everything. As the Creator of all things, God is the rightful owner of all things, whether Rome or America. Therefore, when Jesus says render to God what is God's, that is a very radical political statement. He is calling on Rome and every kingdom of this world to be given unto Him. Give Caesar his little coin; give Rome to God.

As his followers, we do not have permission to be indifferent or apathetic about the problems within a fallen world that rightfully belongs to God. We must renounce the comfortable domesticated sub-culture life and instead give our lives to the greater culture over which Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord. But how? The question of questions is a strategic one. How are we to render to God the world that belongs to God? In the last post, I admitted that we have wrongly sought that answer via the coercive power of the state. Not only is this politicized strategy inept, it is also unappealing to a watching world growing evermore weary of politics. A better way is discovered in the second answer regarding what belongs to God. 

Jesus says the coin has Caesar's image on it, so give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. When he then says to give God what belongs to God, we are, by implication, intended to ask what has God's image on it. The answer is you and me. Brothers and sisters, we represent Christ's political strategy. Conventional political systems and processes are not the primary mechanisms Jesus intends to use to change the world. His entire ministry took place under the brutal oppression of the Roman Empire, and not once did Jesus strategize against it or even complain about it. Instead, it would seem he was completely indifferent to worldly politics. But it isn't that He is indifferent; He is above it. 

Jesus has a more enduring strategy than conventional politics. Image bearers of God rendering their lives unto God, citizens of Christ's Kingdom embodying the ways of the Kingdom—this is the politics of Jesus. Thus, we are back to Abraham Kuyper's theology of sphere sovereignty. Politics is a sphere, indeed a significant sphere, but not an exclusive sphere. The problem is when evangelicals cannot imagine a cultural change strategy outside the sphere of political power, which is precisely what our politicians want us to believe. They want us to see them as the only hope of the world we long to see. But the Christian must declare Jesus as our only hope, and that same Jesus has entrusted that hope to us as image bearers. The true Sovereign has made you a viceroy over spheres entrusted to you, and you are to reign in his name, believing your labors to be far more impactful than the political theatrics of Washington, D.C. 

How are the politics of Jesus defeated? If he followed the political strategies of the world, then that answer is easy. If we live by elections, we will eventually die by elections. But what can stop image bearers of God from rendering their lives unto God? Is anything or anyone able to prevent citizens of God's Kingdom who do not ask the government for permission or rely on the government for power? Hate us, and we will love you. Curse us, and we will bless you. Persecute us, and we will pray for you. Nothing will stop us from striving to make our world reflect the shalom of Jesus. Yes, conventional politics and power can easily be stopped, but the unconventional revolution of Jesus carries onward.  

Even when Rome killed Jesus, they couldn't stop Jesus. They rendered Jesus to Caesar for crucifixion, supposing Rome the greater authority. But Jesus didn't belong to Caesar, and three days later, God proved it by raising him from the dead. Nothing can stop our resurrected Lord. But if we politicize Jesus and unite the Christian hope to a politician or political party, that hope is easily defeated. But our hope is not a partisan hope. We hope in Jesus Christ risen from the dead, who transcends Rome's Empire and will one day transcend America's Republic. All kingdoms, nations, and societies are destined for the ruins of history, but Jesus alone is risen from the ruins, remaining undefeated and undefeatable. 

Within our larger discussion on ethical objections to the Christian faith, we are considering the ethical failures of Christians, which our neighbors understandably hold against Christianity itself. Among these, the unholy political idolatry within the Church has quickly risen to become one of the most significant objections, particularly among our nation's youth.

American Christianity's political enmeshment is so entangled that conversion to evangelical Christianity seems to be a conversion to GOP politics. Likewise, progressive mainline Christianity demands a conversion of sorts to DNC politics. In this way, one could easily argue that politics is shaping American Christianity along predictable lines of partisan division. Far from rebuking America's political idolatry, Christianity seems to be one of its most ardent supporters. Sadly, Christians find more commonality with those who hold similar political convictions despite differing religious beliefs rather than the other way around.

While this politicization of the Christian faith is increasingly manifest, it is nothing new for American Christianity, and there is a reason for it. Historically, Christianity has experienced one of two scenarios with church/state relations: persecution or power.

For most of its history, the Christian Church has been persecuted by the state, and the notion of political power was not in the realm of possibility. Of course, Christians still longed and strived for a world shaped by Christian morality, but they did not, indeed could not, look to the coercive power of the state as a means toward those ends. Rather than a top-down, politically enforced moral order, Christians embodied and practiced the world they longed to see, trusting the slow process of organic social change.

However, after a few centuries of faithfulness on the margins, Christianity found itself positioned in the halls of societal power. In the 4th century, the Christian faith was legalized within the Roman Empire, effectively ending its persecution, and then shortly thereafter, Constantine made Christianity the empire's official religion. Thus began the long tradition of Western Civilization governed, whether directly or indirectly, by Christianity. However, this political power did not yield a Christian utopia. In many cases, it proved a disaster, including a newfound persecution tragically inflicted by Christians against fellow believers.

Though certainly, the power of the gospel can and has overcome the sufferings of persecution and corruptions of power, neither is preferable. This leads us to the uniqueness of the American project. What if a society is formed that constitutionally protects Christianity from state persecution but does not give Christianity state power? This historically unique relationship between the Church and the state seems to strike the optimal balance, but lurking between the extremes of persecution and power is insidious partisanship.

If Christianity is not threatened by political persecution nor handed political power but instead is one of many ideals within a pluralist society competing for democratic success, then Christianity is tempted to play the same partisan game everyone is playing. In this free society of competing ideas and worldviews, the Church can easily be lured by the competition itself and, in this way, be reduced to a political lobby. This was not as noticeable in the Founding Era for the simple reason that there was little worldview competition. Historian Sydney Ahlstrom estimates three-fourths of America's founding population were devout Christians. Therefore, Christianity did not need formal state power because it was culturally assumed and thus held informal power.

But what happens when Christianity in American society begins to wane in the 20th century and is then displaced from the center of cultural influence to the margins of the 21st century? What happens is Christians, like every other competing interest group, are tempted to turn to partisanship of American politics. This strategy is not unique to American evangelicals, but since the Moral Majority movement of the 1980s, it has sadly been a disproportionate fixation within evangelicalism. In our panic over the decline of Christianity in America, we have relegated hope of a better world to an unholy partisan alliance with conservative politicians who honor Christian values with their lips but whose hearts, and even votes, are far from us. Simply put, they exploit our Savior for political gain, and far from rebuking them for it, we continue to idolize them as our only hope of recapturing a supposed Christian society that existed only in mere sentiment.

Not only is this partisanship an ineffective social strategy, but more tragically, it is a harmful barrier to our gospel witness. Again, this is particularly experienced among our youth. The rising generation is wary of their elder's political obsession. If conversion to Christianity is conversion to partisan politics, and if Christian discipleship includes partisan demands, then we have unnecessarily constructed what is, for many, an insurmountable barrier to the Christian faith. This is anathema to Christ's gospel, which, though political, is never partisan.

Tellingly, there are few passages where Jesus engages in the political debates of his day, but the most well-known is his response to unjust Roman taxation. Those details we will consider in our next posting, but what is easy to miss about the politically charged confrontation is who has come to confront Jesus. It says the Pharisees and Herodians came to test Jesus on whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. This is significant because the Pharisees and Herodians were fierce political enemies, much like Republicans and Democrats in America. But Jesus has turned partisan foes into conspiring friends, which means that far from fitting neatly into the political divide of his day, he was a threat to both sides of the divide. And the true Jesus still is.

I am very sorry that we have presented a partisan Jesus who conveniently serves our side of America's embittered political divide. In reality, Jesus proclaimed and inaugurated a kingdom that transcends all earthly kingdoms and our pitiful divisions. This Kingdom of God does not come by force but is more powerful than all earthly forces; it is not visible but yields visibly tangible results; it cannot be reduced to one national border or culture, but it will bear the glory of every tongue, tribe, and nation. Make no mistake, Jesus is fixing the world, but with a strategy far more potent than partisanship. His strategy isn't politicians with their insatiable pride and empty promises; the strategy is you.

Learn more about this episode on TGC’s website, or you can watch the interview in video form below. The podcast is also available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

The objections we have addressed thus far in our defeater ethics series are ethical dilemmas pertaining to God himself. However, many objections to God’s goodness have nothing to do with God per se. Instead, they are rooted in the ethical failures of Christians, which others understandably associate with Christianity. Arguably, the most significant and certainly the most painful of these is the dilemma of church abuse. From the more overt sexual abuse epidemic receiving its long-overdue exposure to the more covert forms of spiritual abuse, ecclesial harm remains a seemingly insurmountable barrier to the Christian faith for many.

Speaking as one with extensive experience on this painful topic, I understand it is much more than a mere objection. Because of the entanglement of God and the inflected harm, it becomes a unique trauma with equally unique consequences. Harm inflicted by someone in a position of power at a workplace, for example, brings a PTSD association with that office or company, but harm inflicted by a pastor leads to PTSD associations with a Church, Christianity, or even Christ himself. Therefore, allow me to offer some thoughts with the seriousness and sensitivity this painful topic deserves.

First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge that the abuse crisis is not exclusive to Christianity. Our society is undergoing a much-needed reckoning with abusive authority, and what is manifestly apparent is no institution or community is exempt. Consider, for example, the “me too” movement. Courageous abuse survivors came forward with their stories, marking them on social media with #metoo. Tragically, the hashtag transcended every normal societal divide. Republicans and Democrats, elites and working class, religious and irreligious, metropolitan cities and middle America—none were exempt from #metoo exposure.

This ubiquity of abuse in no way excuses church abuse. As I’ve already said, harm via spiritual authority is uniquely harmful. But I am asking us to consider that if instances of abuse automatically disqualify an organization or community, then name anything that is qualified. The answer is nothing. Nothing and nobody can be trusted but myself, which is where we are turning as a society.

All authority, except the authority of self, is to be distrusted or even rejected. There are a lot of discussions about the rejection of external authority and the rise of radical individualism, but a contributing factor that does not receive enough attention is that our society is finally being honest about the inevitably abusive nature of power in our world. As power continues to prove harmful, people are understandably turning away from authority in favor of autonomy.

But this, too, presents a problem. Individual autonomy proves equally as harmful as external authority. My biggest regrets, most painful wounds, and most destructive choices happen to be self-inflicted. Of course, I have been harmed by others, but nobody has harmed me more than me. And I don’t think I’m alone.

Herein is our sad state of affairs: Every form of power is susceptible to abuse, including the authority of autonomy. But would you consider that despite the many failures of Christian authority, there remains the hidden treasurer of Christ’s authority? Jesus gets angriest at harmful religious leaders because their abusive power is a barrier to his healing power. Nobody, and this is not an overstatement, does authority like Jesus.

Where does the notion of abusive power come from in the first place? When did it become a basic assumption that the strong should not harm the weak? Who says authority should be used not for selfish gain but for the blessing and betterment of those under the authority? Historically speaking, this vision of power is an anomaly. History is nothing but a struggle to gain power to use power for selfish gain. This is true of every society, nation, culture, and movement, including modern secularism. When enlightened moderns rebuke harmful power, we undermine our foundational premise that humanity has survived and advanced via the Darwinian power struggle of the strong devouring the weak. We did not arrive and survive through altruistic authority but through merciless power. And yet, it remains our basic assumption that authority should not act this way. Why and how did we come to this counter-historical conclusion?

Everything changed when Jesus of Nazareth came onto the scene with the good news of his subversive power. And then this same Jesus inaugurated a revolution with this redefined power at its core, revolutionizing the world as we know it. Ironically, when we rightfully rebuke abusive Christian authority, we borrow from the Christian worldview to do so. When people understandably want nothing to do with Jesus because of the harm inflicted by supposed followers of Jesus, they are invoking a vision of power that originates in Jesus to reject Jesus.

And so my only request is that you not allow harm done in the name of Jesus to keep you from the beautiful name of Jesus.

Who is this man to whom belongs all authority in heaven and earth but who leverages all that authority to proclaim good news to the poor? Who is this man with omnipotent power who became obedient unto death, even death on a cross? Who is this Lord who washes his follower’s feet? Who is this King who dies for His subjects? Who is this Master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light? His name is Jesus. His power is our salvation, his authority is our liberty, and his Lordship is our life.

I am so sorry you were harmed in the name of Jesus, but please do not give up on Jesus. Every ounce of his power and authority exists not to harm but to heal, not to gain but to give, not to exploit but to exalt. Jesus Christ is the only authority worthy of your full surrender.

We have reached a turning point in our series on defeater ethics. Thus far, I have answered ethical objections against God himself. How can a good God judge humanity, allow evil and suffering, restrict sexual freedom, and so forth? Moving forward, the defeater ethics I will address are not about God but our poor representation of God. The failures of Christians that others hold against Christ himself. 

But I received a question I cannot resist addressing. In response to my three-part discussion on sexual ethics, I was asked to explain the nature of Christian love within a moral order where LGBTQ+ affirmation has become the standard of love. I believe this person is not alone in that dilemma. Most Christians genuinely don't want to know how to love their gay family, friends, and neighbors while not abandoning deeply held religious convictions in the process. 

Answering that complicated question is not a departure from our discussion on defeater ethics because, candidly, the greatest barrier to the Christian faith has always been the failure of Christians to love. Jesus said the world will know us by our love. Paul said that if we get everything right and have not love, then we are always wrong. So, we have sturdy biblical grounds to argue our failure to love is the greatest ethical barrier to the Christian faith.  

We must get love right. But again, what does that look like? Let's turn to Jesus for the answer. 

Mark Chapter 12, "And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

When asked for the greatest commandment, Jesus gives two. He believes love of God and neighbor belong inextricably together. And it's their union that speaks to the essence of Christian love. 

First, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." That answer would not be surprising to his Jewish context, as it was arguably their most cherished command. Referred to as the Shema, this passage from Deuteronomy 6 was recited morning and evening and, to this day, remains the central creed of the Jewish religion. 

But then Jesus does something unexpected. He adds to the Shema, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This, of course, is a version of what is commonly referred to as the 'the golden rule.' It appears almost inconspicuously in Leviticus 19:18 and certainly doesn't hold the prominence of the Shema, but Jesus still chooses to include it for a reason.  

Every religion and moral consensus includes the golden rule in some form. Ancient philosophers in Jesus' time argued for it, and down through the ages, it has endured as the most agreed-upon standard of ethical love. In fact, in 1993, the Parliament of World Religions declared the golden rule the one global ethic transcending every religion. The one thing all religions agree upon is that we should treat others how we want to be treated. 

This is what Jesus has effectively done. He has taken the most agreed upon Jewish love commandment and the most agreed upon societal love commandment and combined them together as one. There would be nothing particularly extraordinary about him choosing the Shema as the greatest commandment. His Jewish tradition would agree. Nor would there be anything particularly extraordinary about him choosing the golden rule as the greatest commandment. All cultures and religions would agree. But what makes the Christian vision of love so unique is both are demanded.  

In binding them together, each becomes what the other desperately needs. The command to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength is begging for application. How do we do this? Similarly, the command to love my neighbor as myself is crying out for foundation. Why should we do this? But together, they satisfy the other. 

We now have a concrete application to the seemingly ethereal command to love the Lord our God. How do we love God? Is it words we say, a feeling we have, practically how do we love the Lord our God? Jesus offers our neighbor as the answer. Love for God is sensibly expressed by our love for neighbor. 

And now we also have a foundation for love of our neighbor. Every religion and every culture tells you to treat others how you want to be treated. But you are right to ask why. Secular ethics argues it's good for humanity. But why should I care about humanity more than myself? In fact, the very philosophy that undergirds secularity says I should be concerned about my survival over my neighbor. The golden rule is the antithesis of the Darwinian struggle, which argues selfish genetics has led to human flourishing. The secular worldview gives me no good reason to follow the golden rule. Love for neighbor is begging for a foundation, which Jesus has provided. Why love your neighbor as yourself? Because we love God with our whole self, and this God we love commands that we love him by loving his image bearers.

Therefore, in uniting these two together, we finally have a satisfying definition of love: Loving God ultimately, expressed via love for neighbor sacrificially. Consider now this vision of love in light of the question posed to me. In a moral order where LGBTQ+ affirmation holds supremacy, what does love mean? 

A few years ago, my wife and I were in downtown Lexington on a date, and unbeknownst to us, it was the same day as Lexington's pride festival. I certainly noticed a Christian presence at the festival, but did it pass the test of Jesus' greatest commandment? Some were there in protest, condemning attendees with news of God's hatred and condemnation. Others were there in affirmation, assuaging attendees with news of God's agreement and support. And though both were utterly convinced they were loving the gay community, both were compromising one side of the great commandment, and in so doing, love itself was compromised.

The protesters were not treating the crowd as neighbors to be loved but as enemies to be defeated. This we cannot do if we are going to obey Jesus. We must offer the LGBTQ+ community the same warmth, kindness, hospitality, and care demonstrated by the good Samaritan. If you love God, you must befriend God's image bearers and approach that image with the supreme dignity it deserves. This is the very application of our love of God. 

And yet, we must not forget the foundation of love for these neighbors, which is our love for almighty God. This is where those who view love as blanket affirmation must take heed. If we love God, we cannot cast off God's design, disregard his law, embrace his ethics only when it is socially acceptable, and cowardly change his ethics when it is socially controversial. In our hospitality toward neighbors, we cannot compromise God's moral standards, though it is admittedly tempting to do so. At the end of the day, we love God more than the inner circle of social acceptability, and that love will not allow us to affirm what God condemns, whether that be our sins or the sins of others. 

Chances are, in a culture so divided over human sexuality, one of the two points I just made had you amening and one had you squirming. On a most practical level, if you want to know what love looks like for you, it's devoting yourself to the one that had you squirming. 

If befriending your gay neighbors with warmth, kindness, and hospitality makes you uncomfortable, then that is what love is demanding you to do. If holding fast to our historic ethic and resisting the social temptation to compromise makes you uncomfortable, then that is what love is demanding you to do. 

You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is the foundation of love. You are to love your neighbor as yourself. This is the application of love. With steadfast resolve, hold both together as one, for this is the essence of love.