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

 

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

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

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

My reply was short and to the point:

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

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

@Helga7850 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@comereason: Benatar begs the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

The Points Upon Which History Turns

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rise of Violence

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

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

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

The Politically Faithful

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

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

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

Who Is Really the Enemy?

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

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

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

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

The Lack of Balance in Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christian Model

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

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

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

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

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

Where We Go From Here

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

1. Understand our Primary Identity In Christ

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

2. Understand the Limitations of Our Political System

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

3. Stand Up for Righteousness

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

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

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

4. Model ourselves after Jesus

a. Be prepared to suffer.

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

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

b. Resist the impulse to demonize everyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Seek Civilization rather than catharsis

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

We have a choice: catharsis or civilization.

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

There's no other choice.

 If we choose catharsis, we let our emotions, our Pathos, get the better of us. We turn to our anger and look to give it more justifications. We turn to our frustration and seek an orgiastic release through whatever deeds vents it. We turn to our oppression, our rage, our despair, our fear, and we let it flow through us until the Pathos pours out and covers the land in what will eventually be fire and blood.

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abusing "To Kill a Mockingbird" to Push Bigotry

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Rainbows, Revelation, and the Already and Not Yet

 

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

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

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

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

The First Recreation

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

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

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

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

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

Living in the Already and Not Yet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living Our Lives as Part of The Already and Not Yet

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

We can have all the promises of heaven right now.

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

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

References

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

Thinking About What Truly Makes Life Worth Living

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

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

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

The Human Drive for Meaning in Life

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

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

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

Transcendentals and Elevating Humanity

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

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

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

Modern Culture’s Missing Piece

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

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

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