8 Ways to Grow in Christ

As Christians we are used to being told that we need to be leading godly lives. We know we should be following in Christ’s example. But what does that look like? Is it praying, studying scripture, attending and serving at church? These are all good things that we should do and they should be a response from our faith in Christ, but they are themselves not the core qualities a Christian should have. In 2 Peter 1:5-7, we are given eight qualities that a Christian should have and should be growing in: faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love. These qualities are not unique to this list, with some being listed in the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). But what is unique with this list is the way in which Peter arranges them. Here each quality interacts with one another, and they build off of one another in the order they have been placed. One starts with faith and ends with love. It can be thought of as layers of a cake. All of the qualities are essential and will always be there, but they are layered intentionally.

Faith

The verses leading up to list, explain that through the knowledge of God, we can attain everything that is necessary for life and godliness. This is a knowledge that is tied closely to faith. Before we can have faith in God, we need to know who He is. This, then, leads into the first quality that Peter lists, faith. Faith is the stepping stone for everything in the Christian life. This is a reasonable faith where one is justified in their belief. It is firmly based in the knowledge of God.

Through faith we get the Helper, the Holy Spirit. Without the power of the Spirit we cannot fully attain any of these qualities.

Virtue

Peter then tells us that we should supplement (add to) our faith with virtue. Virtue is the excellence of character, or moral excellence. So, when we are told to add on virtue to our faith, we are being told to be concerned with what God considers good and holy. If you had virtue without faith, you would not have the standard of God with which to evaluate yourself. You would have to base your morality off of what you or society says.

To understand the necessity of godly virtue, carefully examine the stark contrast between the values our current culture espouses and the teachings of Christ.

Knowledge

We are then told to add knowledge onto our virtue. When we add knowledge to virtue, we are adding understanding to what God considers good and evil. This would be moral discernment — the ability to judge the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. As Christians we need to be able to discern our own actions and the world around us. We cannot live holy lives, as we are commanded, if we lack proper discernment.

We cannot properly interact with the world if we cannot discern what is sinful or unchristian behavior.

Self-Control

Then we are told to supplement our knowledge with self-control. What does it look like to add knowledge onto self-control? Here’s a good way to think about it: self-control is the application of our discernment. It is knowing that an action is sinful and freely choosing not to do it. If we do not have discernment, we cannot have self-control in relation to our sin, because we would not even know the difference between what is and is not a sin.

But if we have no self-control with our discernment, we will never act on our knowledge.

Steadfastness

This can also be defined as perseverance, an endurance that is developed by persistent self-control. To be steadfast, to endure is of the upmost importance in the Christian life. We need to persevere through the temptations that are thrown at us (1 Cor 10:13). When we are steadfast, we can endure the suffering that we will undoubtedly face in our lives.

Only through the power of the Holy Spirit and practicing self-control, can we build up this quality in our life.

Godliness

Peter then instructs us to add on godliness to our steadfastness. Godliness is defined as being like God and wanting what He desires. Being steadfast is not enough as a Christian, we need to desire the things of God. We should not persevere just to obey, but because we desire the life God wants for us. But if we choose to cling to God and remain steadfast in the Christian life, our desires will change.

We will change from wanting the things of the world, to desiring the things of God.

Brotherly Affection

The next step after Godliness is to add on brotherly affection. If we are truly striving to align ourselves with God’s desires and want to seek His will, we will love the brethren, the Church. This is absolutely vital to the Body of believers. If we cannot love one another, how can we minister to each other? How can we do ministry together? A large problem with the image of the Church today is how Christians treat one another. We have let the polarization of the world infiltrate the Church. We seem to split over lower secondary or tertiary issues and we seem incapable of having loving conversations over doctrine.

If the world sees how poorly we treat one another, why should they be interested in anything we have to say? If we cannot even love our brothers and sisters, how can we show God’s love to the world?

Love

This final quality we are to add is love. This is a love that is to go out to all people, believers and unbelievers. This love should be obvious when we deal with others. I cannot state it better than Paul himself in 1 Cor 13:4-7,

“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

Conclusion

This list of qualities is a good test to show where you are in your walk with Christ. There is no shame if you are a new believer and do not have all of these qualities. It takes time, practice, and the power of the Holy Spirit to attain and grow in these qualities. Of course none of us in this life will perfectly attain them all, I for one have a long way to go. It also cannot be stressed enough, that the power of the Holy Spirit is needed for us to successfully grow in these qualities. Human effort can only go so far.

By the grace of God may we all be strengthened in these qualities so we may go forth and proclaim Christ boldly.

Captain American Nationalist

I’ve been writing and speaking about “nationalism” since 2019. The first article I wrote on the topic was entitled, “Should Christians be Against Christian Nationalism?” This article was in response to a statement many Christians signed condemning Christian Nationalism, but it never defined the term or clarified exactly what this bogeyman was. Before going any further, let’s define the word “nationalism.” Over the past few years, the first definition that comes up after a Google search is the following:

“identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations”

Given this understanding of nationalism, it seems that it’s always bad to be a nationalist . . . UNLESS the interests of one’s nation are objectively good and correspond to reality. With this in mind, socialists who advance nationalism (Nazis) are objectively evil, communists who advance nationalism are objectively evil, racists who advance nationalism are objectively evil, and citizens of nations governed by Sharia Law who are nationalists are objectively evil. 

On the other hand, citizens of the United States who advance the foundational interests of America correspond to reality and are objectively good. That is to say, if one identifies with the theological foundations of America, that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”, and one seeks to advance this idea to the exclusion or detriment of any nation or person (foreign or domestic) who opposes the objective and unalienable God-given rights of all humans, then one is both objectively good and an American Nationalist.

Christian Nationalism vs American Nationalism

Although I used to advance the term “Christian Nationalism,” I have recently been using the term “American Nationalist.” In fact, I have been clear that if one is a Christian, then they should be an American Nationalist. This is because Christian theology is perfectly compatible with America’s theological foundations, that all humans possess objective and unalienable God-given rights that ought not be violated by anyone or any government. Indeed, the role of an objectively good government is to protect these objective and unalienable God-given rights — to the exclusion or detriment of anyone or any nation who seeks to oppose said rights. If a nation is not opposing ultimate reality, then an objectively good nation will not seek the exclusion or detriment of the other nation. Indeed, since they share the same interests, these nations will be natural allies. 

FreeThinking Ministries has had much to say on this topic over the past five years. Consider the following articles and videos:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christian Nationalism

What Is Christian Nationalism?

The Right Christian Nationalism

Ep. 78 Christian Nationalism? (Part 1)

Ep. 79 Christian Nationalism? (Part 2)

Should Christians Be Against Christian Nationalism?

American Flag Day

Is Christianity to Blame? A Response to TIME Magazine

And make sure to see the many videos on the FreeThinking Ministries YouTube channel and click on the image above to see my discussion with Braxton Hunter and Johnathan Pritchett on the Trinity Radio YouTube channel.

Captain American Nationalist

During an awesome MAVEN mission trip in Utah, Micah Kunkle, Ryan Pauly, and I had some deep conversations and friendly arguments about my views. My dear friends and I agreed on many points, but saw some things differently (and still remained good friends)! At the end of the week, Micah had some fun and created some artwork (with the help of AI) of me as “Captain American Nationalist!”

We all got a good laugh, but then I quickly created the bio for this character and shared it on social media. Here it is: 

This hero fights to protect the objective and unalienable God-given rights all humans possess (to the exclusion or determent of any individual or government—foreign or domestic—who seeks to violate said rights).

He has fought to free those in slavery, fights to defend innocent babies from being murdered, fights to defend confused children from being physically mutilated by evil adults, fights against Nazis, fights against racism, he knows what a woman is and fights for women’s rights, he fights for the rights of humans to defend themselves from evil, fights for the rights of humans to freely think and speak in the public square, and he opposes the evils of Marxism with every fiber of his being!

Captain American Nationalist knows that Satan is behind all the evil listed above. He knows that our battle is not primarily “against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12).

Finally, Captain American Nationalist strives to have sound theology. He wears a cross on his chest as a reminder that he is first and foremost a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven and seeks to live according to its constitution which is the Law of Christ. Although he invites all to immigrate to Heaven and to live according to its constitution, he will not force anyone to do so. Be that as it may, Captain American Nationalist realizes that those who reject this invitation are still created in the Image of God and still possess objective and unalienable rights that ought to be protected. He has devoted his life to protecting God-given human rights and inviting everyone to eventually join him in God’s Kingdom. 

In the meantime, he realizes that America’s theological foundations are objectively true and perfectly compatible with his Christian beliefs. So, because he is a Christian, he affirms and advances America’s interests — to the exclusion or detriment of any who would oppose God-given rights. 

Conclusion

Captain American Nationalist is the hero we should all aspire to be. He is the hero we need at this crucial point in history. Please join me and become a Captain American Nationalist yourself. Make sure to keep Jesus first, and base your political views on sound theology (whatever you do, do not base your theology on politics — that’s backwards)! 

Use your power (one vote per person and a circle of influence) to fight against the Marxist ideas that have been infiltrating our borders and corrupting minds over the recent years. 

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton (a.k.a., Captain American Nationalist)! 

The Evolution of the Free-Thinking Argument

While sitting next to Timothy Fox in Dr. Scott Smith’s classroom at Biola University the summer of 2012, something Smith said sparked a thought. I quickly scribbled down a three-step syllogism in the margins of my notebook and got back to paying attention to his lecture. After class I approached Smith to show him this syllogism and he invited me to walk with him to the cafeteria for lunch. Shortly after that discussion I started sharing an expanded version of what I had initially scribbled down in my notes. Dr. Smith and I discussed this matter for the next two years as it became the focus of my Master’s thesis which he supervised with the help of Sean McDowell. 

While many folks, from PhD philosophers to laymen in the church pew, loved the case I was advancing, many folks seemed to lose their minds over it (I’ve described it as “weeping and gnashing of teeth“). The argument deductively concluded that humans possess libertarian freedom, that human nature includes an immaterial soul, and that there is more to reality than simply nature (the kinds of stuff scientists test and discover). It also abductively concluded the existence of God. Because of these multiple conclusions, I expected atheists to oppose the argument with vigor, what I did not expect, however, was to see the vitriolic reaction from many Christians. In fact, most of the pushback the argument has received has been from either Calvinists — who oppose the idea of libertarian freedom — and typically younger Christian laymen who see themselves as the arbiters and gatekeepers of online apologetics. 

In all sincerity, I want to take a moment to thank all of the vocal detractors of the Free-Thinking Argument. This is the case because they have actually helped to produce so many versions of this argument over the past dozen years. Although they might personally despise the conclusions, my interlocutors have helped me to strengthen the Free-Thinking Argument as it has evolved over time. Typically, it seems that most opponents of this argument fail to interact with the big ideas behind the argument, but are content to complain about certain words used to describe the driving force of the argument. This has led to pedantic complaints that do not scathe the big ideas of the argument, but merely sweep them under the rug. 

The problem might be under the rug, but the big problem still remains for those who reject libertarian free-thinking. Since these complaints merely focus on the dialectic, the words can easily be ever-so-slightly tweaked to accommodate the concerns of those who oppose the Free-Thinking Argument. To use evolutionary language, these mutations occur without benefit to the host argument, but its descendants are stronger.  

Although the early versions of the Free-Thinking Argument are still sound (if one defends the premises accurately), the updated versions do not require as much defense as terms are clarified and premises are fine-tuned. I first started advancing an early version on Facebook in 2012. I focused upon this version of the FTA in my master’s thesis at Biola University (2014), produced a YouTube video about it (2016), and shared it again in a co-authored journal article with Jacobus Erasmus (2018). Although the FTA was not the focus of my doctoral dissertation, I did briefly appeal to an updated version of the FTA to support the thesis of my dissertation (written in 2019) and published in my book Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism (2020). A couple of years later the argument adapted to further criticism as J.P. Moreland co-authored a journal article with me entitled, “An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument” (2022). In November of 2023 I offered yet another modified version of the argument at the Evangelical Philosophical Society to a room full of philosophers and offered it again in my debate with atheist philosopher Alex Malpass on the Unbelievable? show (which was recorded the last week of 2023, but released to the public the first week of 2024). 

To be clear: the basic concepts and the big ideas that provide the force of the Free-Thinking Argument have not changed in the face of criticism. Yes, many critics have voiced pedantic objections, but critiques that do not kill an argument can actually make it stronger. Consider a few different versions of the Free-Thinking Argument and choose your favorite. 

2012 – 2018

1. If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist.
2. If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist.
3. If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist.
4. Rationality and knowledge exist.
5. Therefore, libertarian free will exists.
6. Therefore, the soul exists.
7. Therefore, naturalism is false.
8. The best explanation for the existence of the soul is God

The primary criticism of the first version of the Free-Thinking Argument focused upon the words “rationality and knowledge.” This is the case because I had one view of rationality in mind, and detractors often had another view in mind. Many of my interlocutors were focused upon a rational set of beliefs (that is, a set of beliefs where each belief is consistent and does not contradict any of the other beliefs in the set). That was not what I had in mind. I was thinking about what it means to rationally infer best explanations of possessed data. 

Of course, this version of the argument is still sound, but it requires the one advancing this argument to defend the key premise by carefully explaining what he means by the word “rationality.” 

Six years after the birth of the Free-Thinking Argument, it experienced its first mutation. 

2019-2021

  1. If naturalism is true, human nature does not include an immaterial soul.
  2. If human nature does not include an immaterial soul, then humans do not possess libertarian freedom.
  3. If humans do not possess libertarian freedom, then humans do not possess the ability to rationally infer and rationally affirm knowledge claims.
  4. Humans do possess the ability to rationally infer and rationally affirm knowledge claims.
  5. Therefore, humans possess libertarian freedom.
  6. Therefore, human nature includes an immaterial soul.
  7. Therefore, naturalism is false. 

After these adaptations, the Free-Thinking Argument’s critics largely focused upon what I meant by “naturalism.” Many also continued to push against the third premise and counter with objections like this one: “I can be determined to infer my wife has baked bread in the kitchen if I walk into my house and smell what I perceive to be baked bread.” These kinds of counters missed the point I was attempting to advance. I had much deeper things in mind.

Thus, the Free-Thinking Argument continued to evolve. 

2022

  1. If robust naturalism is true, God or things like God do not exist.
  2. If God or things like God do not exist, humanity does not freely think in the libertarian sense.
  3. If humanity does not freely think in the libertarian sense, then humanity is never epistemically responsible.
  4. Humanity is occasionally epistemically responsible.
  5. Therefore, humanity freely thinks in the libertarian sense.
  6. Therefore, God or things like God exist.
  7. Therefore, robust naturalism is false.
  8. The best explanation of God, things like God, and the libertarian freedom of humanity is the biblical account of reality.

J.P. Moreland suggested the use of the word “robust” to distinguish what I had always had in mind from what he refers to as “fainthearted naturalism.” Here’s the footnote written by Moreland in our 2022 paper:

“Robust naturalism is the idea that only physical things exist. A fainthearted naturalist, by contrast, is one who helps herself to non-physical or immaterial emergent properties.”

While we personally do not think “fainthearted naturalism” is worthy of the label “naturalism,” there are a minority of philosophers who disagree. Thus, the argument adapted for the sake of clarity. 

We also decided to focus on epistemic responsibility since so much of the literature and conversation regarding free will today revolves around the term “moral responsibility.” The Free-Thinking Argument is focused upon something deeper and arguably more important. After all, if one is not epistemically or rationally responsible for any of their thoughts and beliefs, how can they rightly be held morally responsible for acting upon their determined thoughts and beliefs?

Although our goal was not to answer that important question (that essay is forthcoming), the evolution of the Free-Thinking Argument now stopped distracting conversations about moral responsibility being compatible with determinism. Moreland and I highlighted the fact that epistemic responsibility is not compatible with determinism (even if we currently grant — only for the sake of argument — that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism). 

This is because the reworded premises expose the fact that if humans are not epistemically responsible for our beliefs, then something or someone else is. If that something or someone else can be shown to be an untrustworthy or unreliable source of metaphysical or theological beliefs, then a determinist’s metaphysical and theological beliefs face a defeater and are not justified. 

This led to a “spin-off” argument in the same journal article known as the Deity of Deception Argument:

  1. If  exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) is true, then God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs.
  2. If God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs, then God is deceptive and His Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted.
  3. God is not deceptive and His Word can be trusted.
  4. Therefore, God does not determine all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs.
  5. Therefore, EDD is false.

This argument exposes the fact that justified theological beliefs are not compatible with divine determinism. Thus, if one has a theological belief that God determines all of their beliefs, that belief itself is not justified. Thus, that belief is not something that can be known (since knowledge requires justification). 

See An Epistemic Case Against Calvinism for further details. 

2023

  1. If naturalistic determinism is true, then human beings lack libertarian freedom.
  2. If human beings lack libertarian freedom, then their rational processes are unreliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.
  3. Human beings’ rational processes are reliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters.
  4. Therefore, human beings have libertarian freedom.
  5. Therefore, naturalistic determinism is false.

Jacobus Erasmus and I realized that we could avoid all of the unnecessary discussions about “what do you mean by naturalism?” by simply going after “naturalistic determinism” in the first premise (it also makes the argument shorter and easier to remember). That is, just point out what follows from the idea that some form of naturalism is true, and that humans do not possess libertarian freedom. Moreover, to avoid objections about “baked bread in the kitchen,” we decided to laser-focus upon the ability of humans to attain truth about ultimate reality and possess metaphysical knowledge — which is what all who are engaged in attempting to discredit the Free-Thinking Argument are attempting to accomplish. 

As I’ve been walking down memory lane, carefully thinking about the big ideas driving the Free-Thinking Argument, and writing this article, a new version has just sprung to mind. It seems the evolution of the argument never stops. 

2024

  1. If humans are not libertarian free-thinkers, then humans are never epistemically responsible for our metaphysical beliefs. 
  2. If humans are never epistemically responsible for our metaphysical beliefs, then mindless stuff or deceptive beings determine all of our metaphysical beliefs. 
  3. If mindless stuff or deceptive beings determine all of our metaphysical beliefs, then humans cannot infer metaphysical knowledge. 
  4. Humans can infer metaphysical knowledge. 
  5. Therefore, mindless stuff or deceptive beings do not determine all our metaphysical beliefs.
  6. Therefore, humans are epistemically responsible for (at least some of) our metaphysical beliefs. 
  7. Therefore, humans are libertarian free-thinkers. 

This version is great because it kills two birds with one stone, but does not mention any birds by name. That is to say, naturalism, Calvinism, or divine determinism are not explicitly called out in the premises (of course, those ideas need to be addressed in the defense of the premises). Now, one might complain that this argument is weak in that it does not show that God exists, that human souls exist, or that naturalism is false. That’s true, but the Kalam Cosmological Argument says nothing about these issues either, but the rational inferences from the conclusion of the Kalam show that whatever caused the universe to exist is a supernatural, immaterial, timeless, beginning-less, enormously powerful, personal being with libertarian freedom. That sure seems like an apt description of the God described in the Bible. 

Similarly, with the latest versions of the Free-Thinking Argument in mind, if we have deductively concluded that humans are the kinds of beings who are not always determined by mindless or deceptive antecedent conditions, that we possess the libertarian freedom to think, and that we can infer truth about metaphysical reality (gaining metaphysical knowledge), then what view of reality makes the most sense? What is the best explanation of these deductive conclusions? 

As I’ve noted in “The Free-Thinking Argument for Beginners” . . .

[If] atheism is true, we would not expect to be the kinds of things that could think free from the laws and events of nature. We would not expect to be the kinds of things that had the active power to think carefully about ultimate reality and infer — let alone attain — truth about ultimate reality.

If Christianity is true, however, we would expect to be the kinds of beings who have the power to think carefully about these important matters in order to infer and attain truth about ultimate reality. Indeed, if Christianity is true, then we should expect that not only has God given us the power to actively take thoughts captive (2 Corinthians 10:5), but that God wants and desires all people to know the truth about ultimate reality (1 Timothy 2:4). 

Thus, if [humanity] was created in the image and likeness of a Maximally Great Being (the God of truth) who desires all people to know the truth about metaphysical reality — and makes it possible for [humans] to carefully reason together (Isaiah 1:18) and actively take thoughts captive before shallow thinking takes him captive (Colossians 2:8) — then the only reason to doubt [a person’s] metaphysical beliefs is if it’s clear that he is not being as careful as he should have been — and could have been. 

But that entails libertarian freedom to think (which means [a determinist] is simply wrong about determinism). 

The Free-Thinking Argument opens the door to multiple important metaphysical realities. It shows us that if we are the kinds of creatures who actually can gain knowledge about these deep philosophical matters, then we must be free to think in the libertarian sense and not determined to think by untrustworthy prior conditions. In turn, that shows us that the common atheistic view of robust naturalism is false and points us to the God described in the Bible — the God of truth (John 14:6) who desires all people to know the truth (1 Tim 2:4) about ultimate reality. 

Let that sink in. The fact that you have the power to be reasonable is evidence of the existence of God. So, with that in mind . . . 

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton


Postscript

Here’s one more for good measure:

  1. If naturalistic determinism is true, then human mental activity is exhaustively determined by mindless stuff. 
  2. If human mental activity is exhaustively determined by mindless stuff, then humans do not freely think in a libertarian sense.
  3. If humans do not freely think in a libertarian sense, then humans are not epistemically responsible and cannot infer metaphysical knowledge. 
  4. Humans are occasionally epistemically responsible and can infer metaphysical knowledge. 
  5. Therefore, humans do freely think in a libertarian sense.
  6. Therefore, human mental activity is not exhaustively determined by mindless stuff.
  7. Therefore, naturalistic determinism is false. 

Stay tuned for more versions of the Free-Thinking Argument. 

EDIT (3-25-24): Here’s one more that just sprung to mind:

1. The philosopher’s belief that he does not possess libertarian freedom is either (i) determined by mindless stuff, (ii) determined by deceptive beings, (iii) completely random, or (iv) because he possesses libertarian freedom.

2. The philosopher’s belief that he does not possess libertarian freedom is not determined by mindless stuff, determined by deceptive beings, or completely random.

3. Therefore, the philosopher’s belief that he does not possess libertarian freedom is because he possesses libertarian freedom.

A Moral Obligation to Vote for an Immoral Candidate

By Tim Stratton and Josh Klein

We were recently disheartened to see Ron DeSantis and Nikki Hayley drop out of the presidential race. This effectively guarantees Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for 2024. Although I (Stratton) left the Republican Party during the George W. Bush era, I begrudgingly voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020 because I believed the alternative was so much worse. Although we both believe Trump is a deeply flawed person, as Christians and analytic theologians, we have a sense of moral obligation — a duty — to vote for Trump again in this next election and we are encouraging fellow believers to do likewise.

Why would theologians who strive to follow the Law of Christ encourage Christians to vote for an immoral man? Does this not seem hypocritical? We admit it might seem that way at first glance, but upon deeper reflection, we believe clear-thinking Christians will see why many feel this same sense of moral obligation to do what would otherwise seem to be unthinkable. A sense of duty to not just vote for the lesser of evils, but to cast a vote for Donald Trump in order to lessen evil.

This election is not a choice between a moral and immoral candidate but between two deeply flawed and immoral candidates. Their immorality is born out to society in different ways, one with abhorrent personal conduct[1] [2] and the other with abhorrent political and ideological conduct.[3] [4] The choice between two deeply flawed and immoral candidates filters down to, not simply the lesser of two evils, but the choice that would best lessen or limit evil.

Marxism and More

Marxism is one of the greatest ideological evils to infect planet Earth. This atheistic philosophy promises flourishing but historically only brings poverty, despair, and suffering to our fellow humans—our neighbors—around the planet.[5]

Donald Trump does not seem to have a “pastoral bone” in his body. He is not a nice guy, his character is subpar, and he clearly does not understand the gospel. Be that as it may, Trump abhors Marxism and he is committed to fighting against this infection that has brought so much suffering to the world.

With that said, if an American Christian is (i) aware of the evils of Marxism and (ii) sincerely believes that the modern-day Democrat machine is attempting to transform America from the Land of the Free into the Land of Marxism, then, to truly love our neighbors, said American Christian possesses justification for the belief that he has a moral obligation to cast a vote for Trump (even if he does not like his character or some of his policies). 

Indeed, given what we know about Marxism and its history, we have this sense of duty to vote for the one person who can oppose it at the highest levels of government at this unique moment of history. It is a matter of conscience. We cannot vote otherwise.[6]

A possible rebuttal to this idea is that Marxism is not nearly the threat that many think it is in our American political system. That it is a boogie man with no real teeth. Our robust system of checks and balances will do the duty of holding back the agenda of Marxist ideology as it has for decades and, while certain bad actors (even, perhaps, the president) might be infected with the ideology, the robustness of our political system will hold it at bay. Indeed, there are those who might say that Trump invites a similar critique, especially in light of what happened on January 6th.

While we are certainly sensitive to these things, and they give us pause in considering Trump as a candidate, such a rebuttal fails to convince us for two reasons. The first is that Marxism has taken on new skin in the 20th and 21st centuries. Without delving into the entire history of the matter, the ideology of Marxism has been adjusted into something called Contemporary Critical Theory (for more on that see Critical Dilemma with Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer)[7] which orders society by the strata of oppressed-oppressor narratives and sees equity (equality of outcome) as more desirable than equality. And, in many instances conflates the idea of equity with equality, redefining what it means to desire equality. So much has this Marxist laden ideology seeped into our current governmental system that we saw President Biden make this statement upon his inauguration in 2021:

“Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face.”[8]

An executive order that instantiates Marxist principles (based on Frankfurt School philosophies and Contemporary Critical Theories) such as equality of outcome and Critical Theory along with Intersectionality is a danger to our neighbor and to our country. The threat is much more prevalent than many think and as this ideology sweeps through the corridors of our federal government we find that words like “justice,” “equality,” and “freedom” receive shifts in their own definitions.[9] This enables those in power to usher in a new kind of government without so much as touching the constitution. The moral language of such ideologies creates an insidious undercurrent of support for abjectly evil policies. Ordering our country through the lens of “equity,” “anti-racism,” and the like, will only dismantle further the institutions of marriage and community and will further exacerbate racial tensions, not relieve them.

This is how supposed scholars like Ibrim X Kendi can say, without batting an eye, that “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.[10] Kendi is asserting that the only way to fight racism is with more racism. His view is absurd, unbiblical, sinful, and racist, but these are the types of people Biden is platforming and listening to in order to restructure government and society. Indeed, Biden has tacitly and actively endorsed this movement within his administration.[11] [12]

The second reason this objection fails is in response to what happened on January 6th. We might agree that the actions of the former President and his lackies between November 7th 2020 and January 6th 2021 were awful, and even if we were to grant that January 6th were an attempted coup (something of a dubious claim in and of itself)[13] to wrest away governmental power from a duly elected president, that does not make Donald Trump more dangerous than Biden for several reasons.

The first is that he failed, miserably. Not only did Trump fail (if indeed that was his goal), his followers spent years in prison and fighting legal battles because of their actions. Trump had members of his own party disavow him and vote for his impeachment.[14]

It seems evident to us that Trump, even if he has these bents towards authoritarianism, would be held accountable by his own party. We have no such confidence that Biden’s party would do the same to him concerning the nefarious foreign dealings with his son or his ushering in the aforementioned Marxist based ideas like D.E.I and Critical Theory. Biden has already used D.E.I., Intersectionality, and Critical Theory to fill multiple cabinet positions (Rachel Levine [trans-“woman”] – Secretary of Health, Kamala Harris – VP, Sam Brinton – US Department of Energy, Pete Buttigieg – Secretary of Transportation). None of which checked very many boxes of qualifications for such positions other than their Intersectional identities. The Democrat Party also applauded Biden’s executive action on D.E.I., Equity, and Critical Race Theory .

It seems to us that in voting for Trump you may be lessening evil if only by ensuring that if Trump does attempt some sort of ideological or militaristic takeover (something that seems highly unlikely), he is not likely to succeed because he does not have the lock-step support of his party like Biden enjoys.

Loving Neighbors 

Here’s a relevant analogy to support our case:

I (Stratton) have a couple of friends who used to train in mixed martial arts (MMA) with me. They are really big and powerful guys. These men might not always have the best character and they often use very foul language, but they respect me, they love me, and they would fight for me.

Suppose I’m on the road (which is often the case) and my wife calls me and says that a stalker is threatening her. In an extreme scenario like this, I have a moral obligation — to my wife and God — to call one of these uncouth beasts who can and will physically protect her before I call my pastor (nothing against my pastor — he is awesome)!

I think America is in a similar extreme situation.

Consider the words of Christian philosophers J.P. Moreland and Norman Geisler:

“…to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”

  With these words in mind, consider the following:

To permit Marxism when one could have attempted to prevent it is morally wrong. To allow abortion when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch the “transing” of confused children (against the wishes of their parents) without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. (The list could go on and on when considering the platform of the modern-day Democrat Party.)[15] In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his neighbors against the violent intruder of Marxism (and so much more) fails them morally.

Love Always Protects

The benevolent, selfless love that we ought to have for our fellow humans is discussed often in the New Testament. Consider this famous passage from the  “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13. The characteristics of one who loves his neighbor are listed:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Donald Trump might not exhibit most of the traits described above, but he will protect your neighbor from the multiple evils advanced by the Left. Like the crude MMA fighter who is willing to fight to protect my wife if I call upon him, we ought to call upon Donald Trump to fight for our neighbors. We are not voting for a pastor, but for a fighter — a protector of your neighbor!

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian and pastor who actively opposed the Nazi regime during World War II. He believed that evil should be confronted and fought against, rather than ignored or tolerated. The following quote, although it cannot be found in his writings, is often attributed to Bonhoeffer as it seems to capture the manner in which he lived (whoever said it, it rings true):

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

And not to vote is to vote!

These words — and definitely Bonhoeffer’s actions — suggest that he believed that it is important to not only speak out against evil, but to act against it. Bonhoeffer exemplified this, and in the name of love laid down his life to oppose an evil government (John 15:13). If this godly example of a man is willing to bring physical violence against an evil government, the least we can do is cast a peaceful vote against an evil government. I (Josh) do realize that someone on the other side of the aisle might declare they used Bonhoeffer’s reasoning to vote against Trump rather than for him. That they see Trump as the abjectly evil candidate in this scenario, not Biden, but hopefully we have shown why this might not be the case and why the opposite could be true.

Consider another thought experiment: Suppose, in a possible world, Hitler was running for President against Donald Trump. Further suppose that Hitler’s policies were great and that he was a really nice guy, except for one thing . . . he still was committed to the holocaust and killing all the Jews. Would we say, “but what about January 6th?” Would we say, “but his Tweets are so mean”? Would we say, “but Trump is a narcissist?” Would we appeal to any of those excuses in an attempt to justify not using our full force to stop Hitler’s holocaust?

By no means!

We would know that we should not abstain from the vote. We would know that we should not vote for a third party with no shot to keep Hitler out of power. We would know that we ought to vote for Trump to lessen evil. We would cast our vote for Trump, not because we support his character, but because he is the mean body guard who fights to defend your neighbors from Hitler’s holocaust (even if he does the right thing for wrong reasons).

Arguably, Marxism is worse than Nazism. Marxism has killed far more people than Hitler ever did.[16] We must be just as opposed to Marxism as we are to Nazism. They are both evil! They both hate your neighbor. With our neighbors in mind, we are personally convinced that to vote for a third party or to refrain from voting at all is to open the door for worse evil. It seems to us that we are rationally justified, personally convicted, and morally obligated to oppose evil with all of our power (one vote per person and a relatively small circle of influence).

We are not going so far as to say that you have a moral obligation to agree with us or that you must also have a moral obligation to vote for Trump. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that our choices are not between an immoral man and Hitler or Stalin but between two very flawed candidates that will have limited effectiveness in their governance. Perhaps you are on the other side of the debate and believe that Donald Trump is a bigger threat than Biden for other reasons. In fact, I (Josh) will say that I am struggling more than I did in 2016 or 2020 in voting for Trump primarily because of his hubris and what seems like outright blasphemy from him and some of his supporters. Trump is not a moral man at all, but he is, as far as we can tell, the only option to vote for who would limit evil (even if for the wrong reasons or by accident) rather than increasing its prevalence as we believe a Joe Biden led administration would do.

With that said, we believe our case provides justification for those who might be on the fence and deliberating if Christians are justified to vote for Trump in 2024. We will cast a vote for Trump and hope and pray that you join us as we are convinced that the stakes are quite high considering the ideological takeover of our cherished institutions. But, if you reach a different conclusion, please know that although we think you have weighed the issues incorrectly (those who disagree probably think the same thing about us), we will not jump to the conclusion that you are an immoral or ignorant person. We humbly ask you to extend us the same courtesy in return.

No matter what happens, we need each other.

Conclusion

Let us not sugar coat the fact that Donald Trump is an immoral man. Let’s not pretend he’s a nice guy. Be that as it may, he furthers (for the most part) moral policies, whereas Biden is an immoral man who is beholden to the furthest left flank of the Democrat machine and will further (and has furthered) mostly immoral policies.

With all of this in mind, Christians have a moral obligation to love our neighbors. Because we truly love our neighbors, we must use our full power to protect them and fight against Marxism as well as all the other evils advanced by the modern-day Democrat machine (see, The Parable of the MMA Fighter and His Neighbor). Thus, Tim Stratton and Josh Klein will not abstain from voting, nor will we vote for a third party candidate who has no realistic shot at winning. No, we believe that we have a moral obligation to vote for Trump (even though we are often repulsed by the man).

We understand that others may not feel this obligation or even pull for a candidate like Trump. We personally understand the visceral reaction to Trump’s hubris and narcissism especially in reference to himself being “chosen by God” in a recent political ad. With that in mind our encouragement, if you would have it, is to at least put as many barriers in Biden’s way as possible on election day. Vote down the ballot for the politicians who oppose those who push gender ideology on kids, those who support Critical Theory style policies focused on equity rather than equality, those who support abortion on demand and seek to instantiate abortion into the federal constitution,[17] those who seek to advance abhorrent fiscal policies that damage the livelihoods of our neighbor,[18] those who desire to federally mandate acceptance of transgender ideology[19] [20] those who maintain disastrous foreign policies that lead to instability throughout the globe and, in particular, the Middle East[21]and those who demand fealty to D.E.I. initiatives[22][22] and much much more. You have one vote and a circle of influence. Use your power wisely because to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48).

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and love your neighbor (Mark 12:31),

Tim Stratton and Josh Klein


Post Script

A note of clarification: This essay is not meant to be incendiary. We have dear friends who reflect the love of Christ much better than we do. They are also brilliant scholars. We love these brothers and sisters in Christ, but they disagree with us. They think we are wrong; we think they are wrong. One thing’s for sure: one of us is making a misjudgment in the use of reason (which is what the Free-Thinking Argument is all about). Be that as it may, we are all devoted to loving each other — and thinking the best of the other. We are simply making a case as to why we believe our dear friends are making a mistake while actively deliberating upon this matter. That is to say, we believe our dear friends have “crunched the numbers” (as it were) incorrectly and put too much emphasis on things that are not of primary importance and not enough weight on the matters that will help their neighbors flourish.

To reiterate the main point above, if an American Christian both (i) understands the evil of Marxism, and (ii) sincerely believes the Democrat Party is ushering in Marxism (intentionally or unintentionally) then this American Christian can have a justified belief that they possess a moral obligation to use their full power to peacefully oppose the Democrat Party at this weird moment in history.

Although some strange counter-examples might be crafted to show that voting in hypothetical elections in certain possible worlds could be immoral, given everything said above, it seems that in the actual world in which we find ourselves, American Christians who meet the criteria of the above two points can possess a moral obligation to not only vote in the next election, but to vote for Donald Trump. At the least, they cannot be accused of being irrational or immoral by voting for Trump. If, however, an American Christian is either unaware of the evils of Marxism (not to mention all the other evils advanced by the modern-day Democrat machine), or does not believe the Democrat Party is ushering in Marxism within our borders, then this person does not have a moral obligation to vote in this next election.

With that said, in the actual world there could still be a few examples of Christian Americans who fulfill the two necessary conditions above, but are still not morally obligated to vote for Trump in an effort to defend against Marxism. For example, suppose a single mother is working paycheck to paycheck, putting in seven days a week, ten hours a day. She might not have this obligation to stand in line and vote because she is providing for her kids. Let’s make this counter-example even more extreme and suppose that if she stops working, someone may starve, become homeless, or get killed. The provision of immediate needs (which is what I am referring to as a moral obligation to vote for Trump), plausibly supersedes other moral goods, even if she believes there are political powers trying to usher in Marxism. This does not seem to be a too-far-fetched example, given the current economic climate of “Bidenomics.”

With that said, however, given certain ceteris paribus conditions, like having the knowledge and opportunity — and not having strange overriding obligations — then it seems to be a moral obligation in regular cases, at least for the American Christian who knows the evils of Marxism (philosophically and historically) and sees Marxist ideas to be a threat to our land (not to mention the world). That’s the way we see it, and that’s why we cannot vote otherwise.

Finally, we want to reiterate that our hope is NOT in Donald Trump or the Republican party. If Trump is defeated we will not weep or wail, nor will we be in despair. We will serve our Lord faithfully just as we have when Barack Obama was in office, and just as we have over the past three years under Joe Biden. Be that as it may, as long as we have a choice, the best option for the future governance of our nation is, as we see it, clear.


Responses to a few Objections to Trump

One of the difficulties in this cycle is that there is plenty of mud to sling. From Trump’s various court battles, including a recent civil case that held Trump liable for sexual assault. While a majority of these cases are mostly without merit (or so it seems to us), the sexual assault case is particularly concerning. And while Trump’s sexual history is despicable, and the likelihood that he committed disgraceful acts against women is very high, this specific case, in particular, is odd. The jury dismissed the rape charge so the idea that Trump was convicted of rape is erroneous, but maintained some sort of sexual assault charge to the tune of a five million dollar payout. There is more to this case than meets the eye in that regard. Regardless, a candidate with such a troubling sexual past — including a sexual assault allegation from the 90s — ought to be difficult to vote for. We understand! Unfortunately, Trump isn’t the only one that has been accused of such behavior in this presidential race. Joe Biden has also been accused of sexual assault in 1993 by a woman named Tara Reade. It is likely that if Tara sued Biden in the same manner as Carroll did she would have likewise received a similar settlement. This does not excuse Trump’s behavior, but it does highlight the fact that we have two very bad options before us.

This leads us to policy issues:

  1. Trump undermined border policy for political expediency!
    Actually, Trump did no such thing. All he said was that we already have laws on the books that work; just enforce or reinstate them. 
  2. Trump’s Tariff plans will torpedo the economy!
    Paul Krugman (no friend of Trump or the Right) states that Trump’s Tariffs will likely have little effect on the economy, but also believes they won’t lower the deficit as Trump claims. It is worth noting here that Biden’s economic policies have seen costs nearly double for commodities and food in four years.
  3. Trump will abandon our allies! 
    This is nothing more than fear mongering. Besides Trump’s supreme court picks, his foreign policy was likely the bright spot of his administration. No new wars were started under Trump (for the first time in a long time), he brokered peace deals in the Middle East that almost no one thought possible. Trump has not said he would abandon Ukraine, but that he would seek an end to the war, which is necessary at this point in many ways.

We recognize that many won’t see these issues the same as we do and, that this list is far from exhaustive. With Trump’s shortcomings and moral failures in mind, hopefully this article provides a window into why some may not see these specific issues as deal breakers when it comes to a vote for president in November.


Notes

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-melania-stormy-daniels-affairs-marriages-timeline-2018-3

[2] https://time.com/6192383/donald-trump-knew-jan-6-hearings/

[3] https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-mountain-of-evidence-reveals-joe-biden-abused-his-public-office-for-his-familys-financial-gain%ef%bf%bc/

[4] https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/02/15/fbi-informant-biden-ukraine-indicted-false-statements

[5] Kengor, Paul, Ph.D./ Knowles, Michael J. The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long March of Death, Deception, and Infiltration. Saint Benedict Pr, 2020.

Courtois, Stéphane, and Mark Kramer. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 2004. Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, et al. Crime and Punishment. Modern Library, 1950.

[6] We want to be clear that although we believe we would personally be in sin to do anything other than cast a vote for Trump in 2024, we are not seeking to bind the conscience of one who has reached a different conclusion. We are simply making a case that a Christian can be both rational and moral while casting a vote for Trump in this election.

[7] https://youtu.be/QKH_TYu0krw

[8] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/

[9] https://www.whitehouse.gov/equity/

[10] Kendi, Ibram X. How to Be an Antiracist. One World, 2023.

[11]

[12]  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/19/rachel-levine-transgender-biden-hhs-pick/

[13]  While Democrat politicians and pundits often use the term “insurrectionist” to describe Trump, he has never been formally charged with insurrection. Neither have any of the rioters of January 6th. Moreover, as law professor Jonathan Turley observes, if it was an insurrection, it’s the only one in the history of mankind in which none of the insurrectionists had weapons.

[14] https://www.npr.org/2021/01/14/956621191/these-are-the-10-republicans-who-voted-to-impeach-trump

[15] Although each of the following alone provide justification to be a “single-issue voter,” here are a cumulative case of reasons to oppose anyone representing the modern-day DNC: 

  • abortion
  • transing (mutilating) confused kids
  • violating parental rights
  • the LGBTQ+ agenda
  • appointing Leftist judges to SCOTUS
  • weakening the American military
  • open and non-secure borders
  • prosecution of peaceful Christians singing hymns in protest of abortion (11 years in prison)
  • infringing the 2A
  • critical race theory, D.E.I., and Marxist ideology
  • unstable foreign policy
  • Assault of Free Speech
  • bad economy
  • etc.

[16] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/05/karl-marx-communism-death-column/578000002/

[17] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/18/joe-biden-to-ask-congress-to-codify-roe-v-wade-abortion-protections.html (click here)

[18] https://fp1.com/bidenomics-are-hurting-the-middle-class/

[19] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/30/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-advances-equality-for-transgender-americans/

[20] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5

[21] https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-foreign-policy-doom-loop-south-china-sea-world-war-iii-b9ece5fa

[22] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/2839222/biden-stands-by-dei-diversity-priorities-politics-shift/

Does Rationality Require Libertarian Freedom? S2 E1

In this episode, together with Dr. John DePoe, we explore the relationship between rationality and libertarian freedom. Can rationality fully flourish in the absence of libertarian freedom? Is freedom an essential catalyst for logical thinking and informed decision-making? We will address fundamental questions about the human mind and libertarian freedom. In addition, we’ll answer some objections that stand against this idea. So, if you are interested and want to know more about it, join us!

➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️

Website: https://freethinkingministries.com

Facebook:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freethinkinc

X: https://x.com/freethinkmin

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freethinkinc

#Rationality #Freedom #Libertarianism #FreeWill #Apologetics #FreeThinking

Check out this episode!

Dissecting Jordan Peterson’s We Who Struggle With God | FTMonthly #9

In this episode of FTMonthly I (Josh Klein) am joined by the founder of FreeThinking Ministries, Dr. Tim Stratton, as we break down Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s appearance in Omaha, Nebraska on his upcoming book We Who Wrestle with God. We analyze the evening, ask questions about Jordan’s faith and interpretation of scripture as well as his diagnosis of culture and more.

Notes: We Who Wrestle With God book: https://a.co/d/hiEtzIW

Dr. Jordan Peterson’s YouTube Channel:  @JordanBPeterson 

Jonathan Pageau’s YouTube Channel:  @JonathanPageau 

Peterson Gets Emotional About Christ’s Incarnation: https://youtu.be/2rAqVmZwqZM?si=0wzEgMkvecvWdn7G&t=1306

Peterson Interview on  @ChrisWillx  channel: https://youtu.be/WEP5ubPMGDU?si=dls3iuOKWRTvwpeE

Peterson Confronted by Student in 2016: https://youtu.be/RsG71YrB_Nw?si=vVv8GhR4HwnxAZhS

Star Trek (Four Lights) – https://youtu.be/wjKQQpPVifY?si=ETweg6CxVec_htKI

➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️

Website: https://freethinkingministries.com

Facebook:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freethinkinc

X: https://x.com/freethinkmin, @JoshRKlein @TSXpress

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freethinkinc #Apologetics #FreeThinking

Check out this episode!

Begging to Differ on Alistair Begg | W/ Josh Klein and guest Brady Cone

Alistair Begg recently made evangelical headlines with some advice he gave to a grandmother on attending her grandson’s wedding to a transgender person. The response has been mixed to say the least. Some supporting, others condemning, but it seems we’ve lost the ability to disagree and hash out why we disagree in the evangelical realm. In this episode Josh invites Brady Cone on to discuss the Begg situation, how to disagree amicably, and whether Begg’s advice was wrong or right.

Check out this episode!

What “He Gets Us” Gets Wrong and Right | W/ Josh Klein

There’s been a lot of commentary on a specific Super Bowl commercial from a group called He Gets Us – but what do we make of this? Josh Klein of FreeThinking ministries adds his perspective to the fray.

Notes:

He Gets Us Ad:

McDowell and Stetzer Interview: https://youtu.be/lpD9up9XHPY?si=F3i2U9yix-_N9lDr

He Gets Us Article: https://hegetsus.com/en/articles/what-is-foot-washing-and-what-does-it-symbolize

Alternative Commercial:

Babylon Bee Satire:

Contact Us: https://freethinkingministries.com/contact/

Donate: https://freethinkingministries.com/donate/

➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️

Website: https://freethinkingministries.com

Facebook:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freethinkinc

X: https://x.com/freethinkmin

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freethinkinc

Check out this episode!

Critical Dilemma with Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer | FTMonthly #8 W/ Josh Klein

In this episode we interview Doctors Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer on their recent work Critical Dilemma. Critical Dilemma is an important work tackling the problems of Contemporary Critical Theory with a biblical perspective. In this interview Neil and Pat (authors of Critical Dilemma) outline the case against Critical Theory, some interesting ideas on the way forward and the importance of the book in our current cultural moment. Be sure to check it out!

Notes:

Buy the book: https://a.co/d/aeFkYvl

For More Info on Critical Dilemma visit the website: https://criticaldilemma.com/

For Neil’s Work:

https://shenviapologetics.com/

Twitter/X: @NeilShenvi

For Pat’s Work:

Pat’s Website: https://www.patsawyer.org/

Twitter/X: @RealPatSawyer FTM’s

Interview with Evergreen Dance Company: https://youtu.be/tM4WCO4j8A8

➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️

Website: https://freethinkingministries.com

Facebook:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freethinkinc

X: https://x.com/freethinkmin

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freethinkinc

Check out this episode!

Dancing and Critical Race Theory | FTMonthly #7 W/ Josh Klein

In this month’s (December) episode we update the numbers for Give Where You Live (THANK YOU!), talk about the New Year and… what does CRT have to do with a recent response I got on Facebook? Also – how can the arts, like Dance help with evangelism and apologetics. I have a fantastic interview you will not want to miss.

Donate to FTM (be sure to put Josh in comments): https://kearneyfoundation.fcsuite.com/erp/donate/create/fund?funit_id=1085

Primer Info on CRT, Liberation Theology, and Intersectionality: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

https://shenviapologetics.com/a-short-review-of-cones-god-of-the-oppressed/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/20/the-man-behind-critical-race-theory

Evergreen Links: https://www.seedsdanceproject.com/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/evergreendanceco/

Facebook:

➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️

Website: https://freethinkingministries.com

Facebook:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freethinkinc

Twitter: https://twitter.com/freethinkmin; https://twitter.com/JoshRKlein

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freethinkinc

Check out this episode!