The primary means of transforming culture is through the family. Families focused on the three things suggested here will be strong, and our civilization will reflect this standard. We didn’t get to this point in time overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight. It will take time. In the meantime, the most important thing we can do is be faithful to Biblical truth. 

In 1962, the famous saying, “what comes around goes around,” first appeared in the book Burn, killer, burn. The book is a semi-autobiographical novel about a death row inmate sentenced to 199 years in prison. Later, after being paroled, the former inmate would find himself back in prison having harassed a family member.
Everything we experience is subject to cycles. Creation is ordered around the earth’s four seasons. Life itself is full of a range of joys and sorrows with each passing year. As each new year passes, and with a renewed commitment to losing weight, the time clock begins all over again.egins all over again.
There’s another cycle for those paying attention, and grievance culture’s primary means of promoting this cycle is through the use of media narrative. While it’s challenging to prove nefarious intent, the practice of this emerging cycle is notable.
On the one end, you have the battle to “end racism,” as if that’s possible. This battle grabs headline attention for a season, as every story is about race. This cycle is directly attached to a two-to-four-year election cycle. In a broader sense, however, you can go back to riots of the 90s and those seeking justice for Rodney King. Thirty years later, we have the BLM riots for the justice of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and George Floyd.
On the other end, you have the battle for acceptance for a myriad of LGBTQ rights. In the 90s, you had the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies in the military and the battles for acceptance of same-sex unions. Twenty-five years later, we had the Obergefell decision and same-sex marriage.
What goes around indeed seems to be coming around.
The New Intersection—Transgender Way
As these two groups, Blacks and gays, engage in a battle for the culture’s attention, a new player within the intersectional LGBTQ coalition has emerged—the transgender.
With the entrance of the “T” of the LGBTQ agenda, things have become more confusing. With this new group, previously supported arguments have fallen apart. For example, most gay and lesbian rights advocates promoted being “born that way.” In other words, gay sexuality was not a choice but rather something they were born with. Some went so far as to say, “God made me this way.”
Now, transgender advocates reject the “we are born that way” argument. This new position denies being born a certain way, rejecting any social gender norm. Instead, they favor a purposely ambiguous and arbitrary non-standard existence—whatever that means.
We’ve gone from “gay being the new Black” in the early 2000s to transgender identity removing every clearly defined boundary regarding gender in 2022. Furthermore, anyone daring to address issues of gender in this current cultural milieu will quickly be Mirandized into silence.
Read More

The best way to define what I mean by “Christianity passivity” is through an illustration. Imagine you are in a setting in which other Christians are present, and a secular person enters and begins to strenuously denounce Christianity. Suppose that, rather than attempting to make any defense of your faith, you allow the person to proceed unopposed, perhaps thinking that simply being polite is the ideal Christian response. If so, you can be sure that the other Christians present will probably think nothing of this reticence.

As an anti-Christian teenager, I enjoyed challenging Christians about their faith. The arguments I made against Christianity were not original or very well-researched: I cannot have read more than three books on the subject during my whole adolescence. Yet the dynamic of each conversation seemed to prove that I was winning.
In the world of Christian apologetics, it is not uncommon to encounter atheists who are both well-read and charitable. My own hostility to Christianity was more typical of the vast majority of anti-Christians: my arguments were unoriginal because I was not all that interested in developing them. Like most secular Westerners, this did not stop me from having a strong opinion, nor from believing that I had discovered that opinion myself.
What really fueled my confidence was not that Christians were intellectually unprepared—although it helped that they were. Instead, my hostility was excited because I perceived Christians as showing weakness. I don’t mean that the Christians I confronted explicitly conceded defeat. I mean that the believers I challenged seemed to approach almost any clash of ideas with an attitude of passivity. They avoided staking out bold positions, took great care not to say anything that might be offensive, and generally went beyond mere civility and into passivity.
During one such conversation, I recall thinking that I’d made a discovery: that Christians secretly knew that I was right and that their faith was a lie. Far from being winsome, which is probably what these Christians had intended, the impression that Christians were doormats encouraged me to be even more aggressive in my opposition. The compliant agreeableness of Christians did not soften my hostility. Instead, it put blood in the water.
I also remember the very moment when I first began to consider Christianity in a new and different light. A man had handed me a paper tract earlier in the day and, propelled by some unusual circumstances, I found myself looking through it. The content of the tract—although not quite fire-and-brimstone—was clearly intended to be provocative. As I looked at the tract, it suddenly struck me that Christianity might not be, as I’d thought, something that a person trying to rationalize cowardice would invent. This experience didn’t convince me that Christianity was true—that didn’t happen until much later—but I did catch myself viewing Christianity with a new kind of respect.
I agree with authors like Brett and Kate McKay about the problem that has been called “the feminization of Christianity.” Yet I also think the church faces a distinct but related problem: Christian passivity. In this column, I’ll review the nature of the problem and what might be done to counteract it.
The best way to define what I mean by “Christianity passivity” is through an illustration. Imagine you are in a setting in which other Christians are present, and a secular person enters and begins to strenuously denounce Christianity. Suppose that, rather than attempting to make any defense of your faith, you allow the person to proceed unopposed, perhaps thinking that simply being polite is the ideal Christian response. If so, you can be sure that the other Christians present will probably think nothing of this reticence. Your fellow believers will almost certainly not regard you as having done anything suspect or un-Christlike.
But now imagine that, rather than remaining passive, you rise to the occasion and firmly engage with the critic’s arguments, even going on the offensive against his own views. In this case, it goes without saying that your behavior is likely to be frowned on by some of the other Christians present, who might conflate any energy in your argument with unkindness. And if you do genuinely cross the line into rudeness, this offense is going to be judged far more severely than had you said nothing at all, and utterly surrendered the floor to the atheist.
First Peter 3:15 famously commands Christians to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” The word “defense” (apologia) connotes an accused person’s defense of himself in court, as in the Apologia of Socrates. Yet, in the popular interpretation of this verse, the subordinate clause of the sentence has somehow chewed up and eaten the main clause. It is almost a cliché that, when apologists remind Christians that they are commanded to be “prepared to make an apologia,” someone will chime in to quote the subordinate clause of the sentence as if it cancels out the main clause, or as if to suggest that “gentleness” itself is the “defense.” This is not unlike the way that people are fond of quoting the words “render unto Caesar” while omitting the part of the sentence containing Jesus’ main point: “and unto God the things that are God’s.”
To take a larger illustration, consider Chick-fil-A’s 2019 decision not to renew funding for The Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and to instead give to certain secular charities.
Read More

When I was a much younger Christian, v15 confused me. Here it is in theLSB, “Now the spiritual man discerns all things, but he is discerned by no one.” What does that mean? The regenerate are able to discern and examine all things in the wisdom and knowledge of God because that is part of “spiritually discerning” everything. It is the second part of the sentence that confused me. Obviously, unbelievers are able to discern or see or recognize Christian’s faults and shortcomings. However, they are not able to evaluate their true nature as spiritual people because they are not given that as the regenerate have been.

13 Who has encompassed the Spirit of Yahweh,Or as His counselor has informed Him? Isaiah 40:13 (LSB)
When we observe Christian leaders operate according to the world’s standards and methods with pastors taking on roles other than shepherd of the sheep then responding to righteous criticism with further deception, what we are actually witnessing are professing Christians not walking within the wisdom that is available to all true believers via the Mind of Christ. This same situation is seen in all who have been deceived by and drawn into the “Innovation Cult” as well. That would include those proponents of easy-believism in all its forms. We see it in “church organizations” that are built around a personality rather than following a shepherd of the sheep who is obediently following the Lord as he should. When a Christian leader becomes the focus rather than Christ in a ministry then we see this idolatry begin to take shape. How often do we see one of these personalities build up a large church then when he moves on to the next church the one he built just falls apart? This should not be and this is indicative of a form of Christianity that is built around this personality cultic focus rather than around following Christ.
When a church doesn’t seem to be growing fast enough then the leadership changes to a seeker-sensitive or “missional” focus then we know that that church may indeed grow, but that growth will be the fruit of the “Innovation Cult” and not of the Holy Spirit growing a Church. It is manmade growth grounded in the fleshly ways of the world and produces “professing Christians” who are biblically and doctrinally ignorant. They are the simply religious. When we point out these things to the apologists for this sort of thing, the push back is usually hateful and sarcastic with an emphasis on us being legalistic, old-fashioned, and stuck in the past. What should our response be to that? However we respond, it must be within the wisdom from the Holy Spirit that is manifest in the Mind of Christ.
14 But a natural man does not accept the depths of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually examined. 15 But he who is spiritual examines all things, yet he himself is examined by no one. 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL DIRECT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 (LSB)
Read More
Related Posts: