Episode 242
DR. JOHN WEST - The Evangelical Betrayal: How Christian Leaders Developed Stockholm Syndrome
Dr. John West is the Vice President at the Discovery Institute and author of "Stockholm Syndrome Christianity." In this conversation, he exposes how prominent evangelical leaders have compromised biblical truth for cultural acceptance. The discussion reveals shocking examples including Francis Collins using tax dollars to harvest aborted baby parts and evangelical institutions abandoning biblical marriage.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Francis Collins funded harvesting aborted baby parts from 8-42 weeks with tax dollars
- Over 70% of Seattle Pacific University faculty voted against biblical marriage
- Stockholm Syndrome Christians look more like secularists than historic Christianity
- The biggest predictor of intergenerational poverty is broken families
- Supreme Court gay marriage ruling came from a devout Catholic, not an atheist
- Christian boards often fail by lacking courage to uphold biblical standards
MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE
CONNECT WITH DR. WEST
🌟 The Will Spencer Podcast was formerly known as "The Renaissance of Men."
FOLLOW US FOR MORE
- Biblical Men's Mentorship - START HERE
- Will Spencer Podcast Home
- Substack
- Twitter/X
- YouTube
The Will Spencer Podcast is a weekly interview show featuring extended discussions with authors, leaders, and influencers who help us make sense of our changing world today. I release new episodes every week on Friday.
ADVERTISERS
Mentioned in this episode:
Ready to Become the Man You Were Created to Be?
Feeling disconnected from your true purpose? My biblical mentorship offers both challenge and support for men ready for authentic transformation. We work through proven approaches to help you discover the strength, purpose, and clarity God designed for you. Men are finding their identity in Christ, healing relationships, and stepping confidently into their calling. This isn't about avoiding difficulty—it's about walking through it with wisdom and brotherhood. Take this step. Schedule your discovery call and use code "BALANCE" for 10% off. Explore how biblical mentorship might be the turning point you've been seeking.
Transcript
Foreign.
Speaker B:Hello and welcome to the Will Spencer Podcast.
Speaker B:This is a weekly interview show where I talk with authors, thought leaders and influencers who help us understand our changing world.
Speaker B:New episodes release every Friday.
Speaker B:My guest this week is Dr. John West.
Speaker B: r of science Stephen Meyer in: Speaker B:Dr. West was previously an Associate professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University, where he chaired the Department of Political science and geography.
Speaker B:Dr. West has written and directed several documentaries, including the award Biology of the Second Reich.
Speaker B:He holds a PhD in government from Claremont Graduate University and is a recipient of several academic fellowships.
Speaker B:Finally, Dr. West has written or edited 13 books, including his most recent, Stockholm Syndrome, why Christian Leaders Are Failing, and what We can do about it.
Speaker B:Dr. West, welcome to the Will Spencer Podcast.
Speaker A:Will thank you for having me.
Speaker B:I've got your book here, Stockholm Syndrome, Christianity.
Speaker B:I really enjoyed this book.
Speaker B:I thought it was very bold.
Speaker B:I thought it was very forthright and courageous and its approach to a topic that's on everyone's mind these days.
Speaker B:It was also written with a good bit of Christian love for its audience and the subjects that it covers.
Speaker B:And so I wanted to thank you for this book.
Speaker A:Well, thank you.
Speaker A:I appreciate was a long journey to write it and I really did try to struggle to be as charitable as I could, really mentored by through reading of someone named Francis Schaeffer, who many people may not know now because he's been passed on for a number of years.
Speaker A:But he wrote a little book called the Mark of a Christian which I highlight there.
Speaker A:And I so appreciate him standing for truth, but in a genuinely loving, gracious manner.
Speaker A:And I don't think I'm quite as loving as he was, but I did my best.
Speaker B:So let's start then with a bit of background on how the book came together.
Speaker B:It seems like it's been a 30 year journey to write this book, sort of.
Speaker B:You've watched a number of trends and shifts in evangelical and Christian culture in America.
Speaker B:And so it goes back to your time at Seattle Pacific University and in many ways really before.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think things coalesce two or three years ago when I came to the conclusion that I would count myself as a theologically conservative Christian.
Speaker A:And we often who are theologically conservative Christians like to blame the atheists and the agnostics for everything.
Speaker A:And I certainly agree with that.
Speaker A:I certainly think that a lot of them and the progressives and the woke Christians, all that's true.
Speaker A:But after a career of seeing self identified evangelical Christians who themselves were actually pushing many of the same talking points and actually facilitating things and actually looking so much more like the secularists around them than they were their historic faith, I sort of came to the conclusion that this is a systemic problem that before the church, and in a way I don't mean before, I think the church needs to do both.
Speaker A:But rather than just looking at forces outside the church, we actually need to get our own houses in order.
Speaker A:I mean, if we're really hoping to model, say, biblical marriage, biblical sexuality, a view of science, a view of race relations and biblical equality, before we expect everyone else to follow along with what the Bible teaches, we better make sure that that's what we're teaching to our kids, the people in our churches, and being consistent on that.
Speaker A:And if we're mimicking what the world is saying, then Houston, we have a problem.
Speaker A:And so that was sort of the thing that sort of drove me to, I think, wanted to write this.
Speaker A:I've done a number of other things I've done are focused more outward focus on what I call common ground books on people who may not be Christians.
Speaker A:This is sort of my letter to my fellow Christians of, you know, we need to get our own house and our own families in order if we want sort of a better result out in culture.
Speaker B:And what I thought was interesting about this book is that it takes more of a scientific kind of direction.
Speaker B:It focuses on particularly the ways that evangelical Christianity has capitulated to a lot of, a lot of modern science or scientism.
Speaker B:And of course your position with discovery science makes a big impact on that.
Speaker B:So maybe you can talk a little bit about what discovery science is and talk about how you've seen evangelical Christians give in to contemporary trends in science as well.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:You know, as long as I can remember, even when I was in middle school, I was fascinated by the impact of science on culture, both for good and for ill.
Speaker A:Unfortunately, we've seen a lot of people speak in the name of science and do some very gruesome things, going back all the way to things like eugenics and things.
Speaker A:And so one of my favorite authors growing up and still today is CS Lewis.
Speaker A:And he was, I think, a prophetic critic of what is often called scientism, or at least once he called scientocracy, which I actually like that name because it's ruled by people in the name of science, which often is ruled by bureaucrats who really don't even know what they're talking about, but they just claim the section of science.
Speaker A:And so I've been interested in that in a long time.
Speaker A: And so then in the: Speaker A:So when we first met, we sort of sparked in a good way, because he was talking about all these things that were happening in science that actually pointed towards purpose and a creator and that we were more than our material subparts.
Speaker A:And then for myself, from the standpoint of the social sciences and the impact of science on culture, you know, I saw the really deleterious impact of all that.
Speaker A:And what Steve seemed to be saying was, well, actually the best recent science is actually pointing in a direction away from that 19th century, Darwinian, Freudian, Nietzschean science that devalues us as spiritual creatures, that devalues the truth claims of the biblical tradition.
Speaker A:And that actually science was pointing in a different direction.
Speaker A:I thought, wow, that if that's true, we should found a program on that.
Speaker A:And so Steve and I together came up with this idea of center for science and culture that looks first making what are the scientific arguments that actually show that we are more than just matter, that we are the product of a creator, and that we're not just the product of a blind, purposeless process.
Speaker A:So unlike arch atheist Richard Dawkins, at least before him, saying that he's a cultural Christian now.
Speaker A:I guess so, I guess.
Speaker A:But he used to be claiming about how atheism, scientific atheism, Darwinian atheism, helped you become a fulfilled atheist in believing in Darwinism.
Speaker A:So we were pushing back at that.
Speaker A:And I think we've had some success.
Speaker A:I mean, the debate since we began about 30 years ago has dramatically changed.
Speaker A:And in fact, you could number on your fingers the number of serious scientific defenders of Darwinian materialism.
Speaker A:Now there are a lot of Internet trolls, like, I like to call him non Professor Dave, he calls himself Professor Dave, but he's not a professor, not really a scientist, doesn't have a PhD in anything.
Speaker A:And he.
Speaker A:So he racks up these huge numbers with these attack videos, but that's a far cry.
Speaker A:I mean, Richard Dawkins was actually a professor at Oxford.
Speaker A:He actually had some basic knowledge of science and offered some sort of sophisticated arguments.
Speaker A:You can't find people like that of the new generation who are making serious arguments for Darwinian materialism.
Speaker A:And so now the big question is, so if Darwinian materialism is false, then what is true?
Speaker A:And I think that is going to be played out as to whether we go to something that is more holistic and traditional, that I would call the biblical tradition, the Judeo Christian tradition, or do we go in a different direction, because not all spiritual things, I think, are good.
Speaker A:So we'll see.
Speaker A:So at Discovery Institute, we're sort of most known for.
Speaker A:We do have other programs, but probably most notorious for being sort of an intellectual home for people like, you know, Steve Meyer, Michael Behe, many others who argue that there's empirical evidence of design in nature.
Speaker A:So that's what I.
Speaker A:That's my day job.
Speaker A:I help direct that program more on the.
Speaker A:On the cultural side than on the science side, because, as you point out, I used to be a professor of political science, which is more an art than a science, But I've been involved in it since the very beginning.
Speaker B:So you actually see up close the impact that these scientific beliefs, scientocratic beliefs, I love that have on both politics and on culture and the church.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And in fact.
Speaker A:So that is why it is a theme throughout my book, Because I don't think people realize quite how much these.
Speaker A:What I said are.
Speaker A:These bad, bogus beliefs in the name of science out of the 19th century have impacted our beliefs about moral relativism, about sexuality, about life issues like abortion, about even actually economics.
Speaker A:And as I'm talking, I'm here in Seattle, which is one of the saddest.
Speaker A:I mean, it used to be a beautiful city, and it's not anymore.
Speaker A:And it's a really sad situation.
Speaker A:And I would tie part of that to our homelessness crisis.
Speaker A:And part of that is the idea that, well, how do you solve homelessness?
Speaker A:Well, you just throw material things at people, you give them housing and shelter, but you don't care about anything else about them.
Speaker A:And that's a really a materialistic approach coming out of the 19th century that we're just blind matter in motion.
Speaker A:And so our welfare programs, our social programs should just be about changing material input.
Speaker A:Well, as I talk in my book, we've transferred trillions of dollars of resources to try to solve the problem of poverty, and we haven't.
Speaker A:And so I think that this scientistic mindset, in a way, I don't even like to call it a science mindset because I think science is a Good thing.
Speaker A:And I don't want to sound anti science, because I'm not.
Speaker A:But it's dressed up and sold to people as science.
Speaker A:And that has been one of the.
Speaker A:In the Middle Ages, people say, thus saith God and I'm God's spokesperson.
Speaker A:And then here you have.
Speaker A:Well, thus says science.
Speaker A:And as long as I'm science's spokesperson, you just have to do what I say.
Speaker B:I can hear in the background, I can actually hear the sirens that you had mentioned earlier before we started recording.
Speaker B:Maybe just let people know.
Speaker B:I don't know if it'll show up.
Speaker B:People will be able to hear it ultimately when the final product comes out, but let people know what's kind of what's going on.
Speaker B:Just down the block from where you are today.
Speaker A:Yeah, so we're about a block from the Federal Building in Seattle and last night there was pretty much riotous behavior with tear grass and a lot of other things.
Speaker A:And there was an antifa.
Speaker A:Attempted blockade because of course they don't want illegal immigrants to be detained or deported.
Speaker A:And so they were trying to block the exits and actually stealing properties.
Speaker A:We have scooters here that you're supposed to rent in Seattle.
Speaker A:So stealing property to actually create a barricade.
Speaker A:And they stole the American flag to burn it.
Speaker A:It wasn't their American flag to burn, but they did it.
Speaker A:And really I don't think there weren't mass arrests.
Speaker A:And so today that's continuing.
Speaker A:And so we have heard some things.
Speaker A:But there's going to be a more mega march tonight in a different place of Seattle that unfortunately might get like la.
Speaker A:But yeah, the Federal Building is not the safest place to be right now, unfortunately.
Speaker B:So what's interesting about all this is that.
Speaker B:So we're talking about your book Stockholm Syndrome, Christianity and again, Stockholm Syndrome sort of being a reference, actually.
Speaker B:I'll let you talk about what Stockholm Syndrome is and then I'll sort of connect some of the pieces we've been talking about.
Speaker A: infamous bank robbery in the: Speaker A:And where bank robbers held several people hostages.
Speaker A:But then something strange happened by after that, you know, several days into it, the hostages started to really identify and feel grateful to their hostage takers.
Speaker A:And so this.
Speaker A:Some psychologists, and I want to admit psychologists are.
Speaker A:This is very controversial now as a actual diagnosis, so I'm not actually using as that, but I do think there's an insight here where people who have been held captive or who have been abused or in abusive situations where they've been really controlled sometimes, rather than just rejecting that, they can end up identifying with their captors.
Speaker A:And I think that's the reason I gravitate on that was it seemed to explain what I had seen among many of my fellow faculty members when I was a Christian college professor in my work at Discovery Institute with faith leaders and things where they, many of these Christians, especially if they go into their pastors or go into the government or go into the entertainment industry or the news industry, these culture forming industries, well, many of them end up looking more like the secularists around them and they end up identifying more with the operating assumptions of the secularist non Christians around them than they do with their historic faith.
Speaker A:So they may be personally say Jesus is my Savior and maybe personally devout and sincere in that, but when it comes to public discussions, their public views of what they're actually promoting, they sound a whole lot like what I would say their cultural captors are.
Speaker A:Because if you go into these culture forming industries, you've either gone through graduate school or you have a lot of fellow of your peers around you who are hostile to a Christian worldview.
Speaker A:And so you're surrounded by those people.
Speaker A:And so they may be personally nice people, but their worldviews are really diametrically opposed to yours.
Speaker A:Well, after being inculcated by that and spending years in it, you could end up adopting their views sometimes unconsciously, sometimes not so unconsciously.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:And at a certain point it must become conscious, right?
Speaker B:Maybe initially, like, ah, it's fine, I'm not influenced, but over time.
Speaker B:Please go ahead.
Speaker A:Yeah, no, I do think I try as much as possible not to judge the state of someone's heart.
Speaker A:I think that's God's responsibility.
Speaker A:But I do think at a certain point if you are so pushing against what the traditional Christian view is and you're so mouthing the words in every possible situation, at a certain point you are completely culpable for that.
Speaker A:And so at what point that is, I think God will know.
Speaker A:And so I tried to deal with the outward manifestations because I think regardless, regardless of what's happening in their heart, if what they're doing is destructive and untrue, that needs to be called out.
Speaker A:And this is sometimes a lot of Christians have this mistake that, well, if someone is being well meaning that that means that they get a pass, that we don't criticize or that we don't raise, that what they're pointing us to doing is bad, but that's just insane.
Speaker A:And people in their private life know this.
Speaker A:If they have a family member who's well meaning but is a fentanyl addiction, I mean, it really doesn't help them to say, oh, well, you're well meaning.
Speaker A:So if that gives you pleasure, you do that.
Speaker A:No, you try to rescue them from that, even if they think you're not being nice by telling them that.
Speaker A:And so people really, if they really think about it just for like 30 seconds, they would understand that this idea that if someone is well meaning, that that means it's not important to call them out or to uphold the truth.
Speaker A:I would argue it's actually even more important because it's the people who are well meaning who may do the most damage.
Speaker A:And I saw this actually at Christian college where you had theology professors who were basically bashing the accuracy or truth of the Bible, but they were doing it as committed Christians.
Speaker A:And so they were much more likely than if we had students confront an atheist in their classroom, they'd be much more likely to say, oh yeah, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Speaker A:But if they have someone who purports to be a faithful Christian who's telling them, oh, why are you believing that you think that's accurate then?
Speaker A:I saw this with students.
Speaker A:They're more likely to be taken in by that and that leads to destruction for them and a lot of hurt.
Speaker A:And so it's not.
Speaker A:Yes, kind and compassionate.
Speaker A:And I think we need to be careful not to demonize other people.
Speaker A:And also, I firmly believe God is the ultimate judge, not us.
Speaker A:But that does not mean that we cannot or should not be calling out error.
Speaker A:And Paul is very clear on this.
Speaker A:Peter is very clear on this in the New Testament.
Speaker A:But I think a lot of Christians think, oh, well, that's not being nice or I'm not being loving by telling the truth.
Speaker A:That's not a biblical view of love.
Speaker B:And this conversation matters a whole lot for a number of reasons.
Speaker B:One is because of course, we have the phenomenon or the epidemic or the tragedy of abortion, 60 million and counting, something like that.
Speaker B:But then you have fires and riots out at the Federal Building and we've seen a widespread decay of American culture, which I always have felt that Christians are supposed to be a backstop against that perhaps I haven't always felt that way, but certainly I feel it quite strongly now.
Speaker B:And as I read through your book and you're describing all the different ways that biblical truth has been shaved off in these little bits of culture and Politics and influence, people attempting to ingratiate themselves to the inner ring, which you've talked about, C.S.
Speaker B:lewis, his term the inner ring.
Speaker B:And you sort of see that over time, maybe initially these small little bits of compromise don't seem like a big deal.
Speaker B:But you run it for 50, 60 or 70 years and then you see where it gets us, which is where we're at today.
Speaker A:Now that's true.
Speaker A:I really saw that in my 12 years at Seattle Pacific University, which was a historically evangelical university.
Speaker A:And you know the backstory to this, many people even don't know today, many Christians don't know that all the top colleges and universities like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, were all started as devoutly, explicitly Christian institutions.
Speaker A:No one would make that claim that they are today.
Speaker A:Well, what happened?
Speaker A:Well, by the 19th century, many of them really had fallen away from that.
Speaker A:And so then evangelical Christians in America, to their credit, started a whole slew of other institutions like Wheaton here in Seattle, Seattle Pacific University that was founded by free Methodists in the latter part of the 19th century to say what we lost we can't recapture unfortunately right now, but we're going to at least start anew to make sure that we are intentional about transmitting truth to the next generation.
Speaker A:But what we've seen that many of these institutions that were founded at that now they themselves are going in the same direction as places like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, in fact looking to those places as their models for what they should be to be excellent.
Speaker A:Let's be like Harvard.
Speaker A:Well, no, if you want to be excellent, you don't want to be anything like Harvard.
Speaker A:I mean really.
Speaker A:But that Harvard envy.
Speaker A:And I saw that when I was a faculty member, there was a book that came out called the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll that on the surface was, you know, it made a good point, which is that evangelicals should be for first rate scholarship.
Speaker A:I agree with that.
Speaker A:But then you dig into, well, what does he mean by first rate scholarship?
Speaker A:And really certainly how his book was taken.
Speaker A:And I think there were things like this in his book, even though he disclaimed some of it.
Speaker A:It was being loved by the world.
Speaker A:You know, if Harvard publishes you or praises you, that means we've arrived.
Speaker A:Well, this is such.
Speaker A:I mean, it actually comes out of insecurity, not confidence.
Speaker A:I mean, and the goal of true scholarship historically was truth.
Speaker A:You know, how much do you actually explicit the truth?
Speaker A:And the reason you had universities was to hand down the truth to the next generation.
Speaker A:And so this boulderized version of great evangelical Scholarship basically became a mandate.
Speaker A:I saw this at my own university and at other Christian universities to basically ape the world and get endorsed by the world.
Speaker A:And that doesn't end well.
Speaker A:And so where I was at when I joined, it was fairly theologically orthodox.
Speaker A:In fact, the year I joined or a year before I joined, the board of trustees actually denied tenure to someone who was out there theologically.
Speaker A:And so they were doing their job.
Speaker A:I was actually warned by fellow faculty members, oh, we have a very theologically conservative board of trustees.
Speaker A:And little did they know that.
Speaker A:When I heard that, I was saying privately, great.
Speaker A:You know what I mean?
Speaker A:They're actually doing what they're supposed to be doing.
Speaker A:Fast forward to 12 years from then when I ended up deciding to leave.
Speaker A:One of the last things I did at Seattle Pacific was try to help, unsuccessfully, unfortunately, the tenure battle.
Speaker A:And tenure, for those who don't know, it's sort of lifetime appointment.
Speaker A:I mean, it's not quite that there are ways they can get rid of you, but, you know, it's designed to promote academic freedom and other things.
Speaker A:And we can debate whether that's a good thing.
Speaker A:But that's, you know, and if you don't get tenure, then you have to leave.
Speaker A:So it's not like if you have turned down for tenure, you can just stay.
Speaker A:So we had someone up who I think was one of the most dynamic, biblically dynamic persons and great scholar that we had hired in the years that I was there.
Speaker A:And he was turned down for tenure by the faculty and the board basically rubber stamped it.
Speaker A:And as near as I can tell, he was turned down because he was too biblically faithful.
Speaker A:And he was also politically conservative, which you weren't really allowed to be.
Speaker A:He made the mistake.
Speaker A:I write in the book of this is during the time of George W. Bush, where a fellow faculty member who had tenure was attacking Bush as Hitler.
Speaker A:You know, people today hear, oh, Trump is Hitler, whatever this Hitler, Everyone's Hitler according to the left.
Speaker A:I mean, George W. Bush, people forget, was described as Hitler.
Speaker A:And so we had a faculty member who was saying that, and this faculty member who didn't have tenure had the courage to say, I think that's not right.
Speaker A:And so that rubbed people the wrong way.
Speaker A:And so I think that that's how you lose institutions.
Speaker A:And then so much so just two or three years ago, they had so things.
Speaker A:When I was there, there was a battle over was the Bible actually completely authoritative and should we have to have faculty members who believe that?
Speaker A:Our sponsoring denominations said that that was a view.
Speaker A:But they said, well, no, that's not a heal that we're going to die on at Seattle Pacific.
Speaker A:Well, fast forward to just a couple of years ago where then the gay marriage thing blows up.
Speaker A:At this self identified evangelical Christian School, over 70% of the faculty vote basically against the biblical view of marriage.
Speaker A:So I've often asked, when I've talked about this publicly, how do you have an evangelical Christian university where it was actually over 70% of the faculty vote against basic biblical marriage between a man and a woman permanent, and that that's where sexuality should take place?
Speaker A:Well, the answer is you don't.
Speaker A:I mean, you no longer really have a Christian institution.
Speaker A:And now since that time, some new board members have tried to make some amendments, and I think there have been some improvements, but I don't really think they understand how deep the surgery needs to be.
Speaker A:And here's an example.
Speaker A:I actually write about one of this in my book, but then now it's happened again.
Speaker A:So this new board, or revised board that's trying to be more faithful has endorsed an LGBTQ festival on their campus using campus facilities.
Speaker A:And they did that last year and they've now done it again this year.
Speaker A:And so I think we're back to a board that is, as near as I can tell, that is, again, personally more biblically faithful than maybe some of the people three or four years ago who have now left, but they don't seem to have the stomach or the spine for doing what would need to do to get an institution like that back to its foundations.
Speaker B:And that was one of the striking things about the book as well, was that you spend the first, you know, the first 10 or so chapters describing this kind of cultural, theological, political drift that you observe in the world and that we all see now.
Speaker B:And then you crystallize it with, this was your exact experience at Seattle Pacific University.
Speaker B:University that began with certain, certain certain biblical orthodox convictions, and that over the time that you were there, slowly drifted further and further away and you actually articulated the process by which that happened.
Speaker B:And I think anyone listening would read that chapter and be like, yep, I recognize that in my institution.
Speaker B:I recognize that in my culture.
Speaker B:I recognize that even in my church.
Speaker B:And.
Speaker B:And I thought that was just a really striking, like, no, this was real.
Speaker B:The stakes of this are real.
Speaker B:I watched this up close.
Speaker B:You provide some instructions for what people can do about it.
Speaker B:I just thought that the total picture of that was very powerful.
Speaker B:So I want to take a couple steps back to the beginning parts of the book and maybe Talk through some of the ways that you've seen the biblically orthodox faith be impacted in a university context and in a political and a cultural context as well.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:Well, I start the book, as I said, I am pretty politically conservative, but this book is not largely about politics.
Speaker A:I think it's about cultural issues that Christians, regardless of, say, what they think about Trump, should be able to agree on.
Speaker A:I'm not saying they do.
Speaker A:And so that's why I start actually with a chapter on is the Bible true and historically?
Speaker A:One of the foundational beliefs of actually Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians is that the Bible is absolutely true and authoritative and certainly for evangelicals, and that is not the case anymore.
Speaker A:And so I talk about, say, megachurch pastor Andy Stanley, who wrote a whole book basically saying we should unhitch ourselves from the Old Testament and actually calling the Old Testament the obsolete Testament, and we should even reorganize our Bibles to move it to the back of our Bible and talking about the Bible in a way that I'd say a historically faithful Christian would not talk about the Bible.
Speaker A:Then among a self identified evangelical, Mike Lacona, who actually I learned today, just came out with a two hour podcast blasting me.
Speaker A:And I think he's a personally sincere Christian, but he has a view of the New Testament where he argues that the New Testament Gospels are like Hollywood movies that were inspired by true events, but, you know, they're inspired by true events.
Speaker A:And so lots of things can be changed.
Speaker A:And we're not talking about here.
Speaker A:And I want to make clear, because sometimes he confuses things.
Speaker A:And in his response that I saw today, he said, well, you know, these aren't the literal words of Jesus.
Speaker A:Okay, no one's saying that.
Speaker A:In fact, I make very clear in my book that no one's saying that.
Speaker A:There was a verbatim transcript of everything that Jesus said.
Speaker A:I mean, that's just a straw man.
Speaker A:The church's historic position of Christians has been.
Speaker A:But it's accurate to what he actually objectively said.
Speaker A:So it could be a paraphrase, but there's some limits there.
Speaker A:And if you look at his exact examples, and one which I think really crystallizes it is in the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, you have Jesus on the cross saying, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Speaker A:In John, he supplements with a lot of different things, he's adding different things that aren't in the other gospels.
Speaker A:So when Jesus is on the cross, he writes about him saying, I thirst.
Speaker A:And according to Mike Lacona, Well, I thirst is John's rewritten version of My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Speaker B:What?
Speaker A:Exactly.
Speaker A:That's not a paraphrase.
Speaker A:I mean, that obliterates.
Speaker A:I mean, this is like the liberal meaning of the Constitution, of the evolving Constitution, where you redefine the Constitution to say there's a right of abortion in the Constitution or right of gay marriage in the Constitution.
Speaker A:No, there's not.
Speaker A:I mean, let's be honest.
Speaker A:Whatever you think of those things, that's not true.
Speaker A:And to call something like a change between my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Speaker A:To I thirst as a paraphrase of the same comment is just ridiculous.
Speaker A:And you don't need to be a scholar.
Speaker A:And he points out, you know, I'm not an expert in biblical scholarship.
Speaker A:No, I'm not.
Speaker A:But it doesn't actually take an expert to understand that that's a dramatically different thing than what Christians, especially evangelical Christians, have believed when they say they think the Bible is an authoritative exposition of what Jesus said and what God teaches.
Speaker A:But the reason I bring up Mike Lacona is he's beloved among most of the evangelical elites, even those who are otherwise theologically conservative.
Speaker A:And I say that's a problem, and it's a problem that keeps giving.
Speaker A:He is actually pretty conservative in his other theological beliefs, I think, even maybe in his political beliefs.
Speaker A:But once you adopt the idea that the Bible really isn't authoritative or accurate in the way that historically Christians have believed, I think it leads to all sorts of other things.
Speaker A:And that's what the rest of the book talks about.
Speaker A:So, I mean, I could stop here or go on to talk about science and race and some of these other issues.
Speaker B:I would actually like you to talk about those.
Speaker B:But I just want to point out that it's that really subtle.
Speaker B:Well, sometimes it's subtle and sometimes it's not so subtle.
Speaker B:Ways of kind of shaving off, like, oh, that's not an accurate.
Speaker B:That's not accurate.
Speaker B:That's not what the Bible actually said.
Speaker B:It's a myth to unhitch all the different creative ways people try to undermine biblical inerrancy.
Speaker B:And that's an example of a slippery slope.
Speaker B:It's a very slippery slope.
Speaker B:Once you start saying, oh, yeah, we can't actually say that these words are accurate, then it all falls off from there.
Speaker B:And please, I would like to talk about the ways in which it shows up across race and sexuality, et cetera.
Speaker A:Yeah, let me get to that.
Speaker A:But let me get one more comment.
Speaker A:About Mike Lacona, I want to say I think he's very personally sincere Christian, but one of the things, the reason why I find it so troubling is that he will actually say, I mean that, well, he believes in biblical authority and that the Bible is accurate, but he redefines accuracy.
Speaker A:The reason I gave the example that I just gave, which he does not dispute, is that in his view, John rewriting My God, my God, why have you forsaken me as I thirst?
Speaker A:Well, that's accurate.
Speaker B:What?
Speaker A:So the reason why I like to, in a way, I guess I'm like the character Puddleglum, for those of you who read C.S.
Speaker A:lewis, is that one inconvenient fact can cut through a lot of bluster.
Speaker A:And I trust that Mike Laconis sincerely believes that what he's saying is that the Bible is accurate, but objectively, with examples of what he's actually saying, it doesn't match with that.
Speaker A:And I think most Christians, most evangelical Christians would understand that, that in a view.
Speaker A:That said, and let's just be clear, in this case, there's no contradiction here.
Speaker A:There's nothing to solve.
Speaker A:Jesus said both.
Speaker A:I mean, so there's absolutely no contradiction between him saying both.
Speaker A:So it's actually creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Speaker A:But it's also a dramatic thing.
Speaker A:If you can't be sure anytime you read the words of Jesus that the so called paraphrase and I said this is not a paraphrase, but that the gospel writers were so loose that you can't know whether Jesus said my God, my God, why have I you forsaken me?
Speaker A:Or I thirst.
Speaker A:That's a problem.
Speaker A:And he has all sorts of explanations.
Speaker A:Well, I thirst in the Bible means that you're thirsting for God and you can come up with all sorts of post hoc explanations that, that no one ever came up with before except for modern scholars who are imbibing and I'd say modern evangelical scholars who have imbibed this higher critical view of the Bible coming out of the 19th century.
Speaker A:And so I call what Mike Lacona is doing is Jesus seminar light.
Speaker A:And he doesn't like that term.
Speaker A:But in his response, I really don't see a difference.
Speaker A:The Jesus seminar was these liberal theologians who would then sort of vote on whether they thought a saying of Jesus was accurate or not.
Speaker A:And if they didn't vote that it wasn't, then, well, that wasn't accurate.
Speaker A:Well, I think really what Lacona is doing is Jesus seminar light.
Speaker A:He's glossing it up with nicer terms, but that's really what he's doing anyway.
Speaker A:But going on, that was a long winded coda.
Speaker A:So science.
Speaker A:Sometimes Christians argue that if we just get more Christians into politics or into entertainment, that our culture is going to be great.
Speaker A: That was really coming in the: Speaker A:I saw a lot of that argument even more recently.
Speaker A:People like Aaron Rand, and I respect Aaron Rand, but his book basically about that we're in the negative world, which I actually think is insightful.
Speaker A:But if you look at the solution, too much of it is, well, we don't have enough people in the elites.
Speaker A:Well, we actually have quite a few evangelical Christian elites.
Speaker A:The problem is they look more like the world.
Speaker A:So let's talk about in the area of science.
Speaker A:Hands down, the most powerful scientist in America for more than a decade was a man named Francis Collins, head of the nih.
Speaker A:Dispersed billions of dollars of our tax dollars that really helped set the course or misdirect the course of science research in America.
Speaker A:The most powerful scientists in America.
Speaker A:Evangelical Christian.
Speaker A:He was celebrated on Time magazine.
Speaker A:Evangelical Christian.
Speaker A:But what did he actually do?
Speaker A:And again, I can't read his heart.
Speaker A:I think he sincerely thinks Jesus is a savior.
Speaker A:But here's the stuff he did.
Speaker A:He spent millions of tax dollars to create a nationwide tissue bank out of a university in Pennsylvania to harvest the body parts of aborted babies from something like eight weeks to 42 weeks.
Speaker A:I mean, 42 weeks, you're talking about infanticides with our tax dollars.
Speaker A:And he must have been somewhat embarrassed by it because when Judicial Watch, which is the group that exposed this, tried to, through a Freedom of Information act request, tried to get the data on it, the NIH under Francis Collins refused.
Speaker A:They had to go to court to force Francis Collins NIH to disgorge this document.
Speaker A:So this is not a conspiracy theory.
Speaker A:This is like hard facts.
Speaker A:But the only reason we know about it is because someone sued and forced Francis Collins to divul budget millions of tax dollars to harvest aborted baby parties.
Speaker A:And what was some of the research they funded with this?
Speaker A:Well, taking scalps from aborted babies and grafting them into mice.
Speaker A:I mean, so and then.
Speaker A:But that's not all.
Speaker A:He spent millions more.
Speaker A:Francis Collins touted himself, his own words, as an ally and advocate of the lgbtqia.
Speaker A:And I'm probably missing some of the, the consonants there, but he called himself an ally and advocate.
Speaker A:And he spent millions of dollars to fund doctors like in LA and a children's hospital in Boston that were doing surgeries.
Speaker A:To, you know, I call gender deconstructive surgeries.
Speaker A:They're cutting off body parts from young women and young men and giving them puberty blockers, filling them filled with chemicals.
Speaker A:We spent millions of dollars.
Speaker A:Francis Collins, devout evangelical Christian, spent millions of dollars promoting that now.
Speaker A:So you can have as many.
Speaker A:You can duplicate Francis Collins until the cows come home.
Speaker A:But if you have that sort of Stockholm syndrome Christian in leadership, it doesn't matter how many Christians you have in government, if they're like Francis Collins, you're going to get the same exact stuff.
Speaker A:And in fact, the saddest epitaph on Francis Collins career, I mean, he's still alive, but the epitaph on his government career he's now out of the nih was it was either Slate or it was one of the liberal publications, progressive secular publications, that basically said something like this.
Speaker A:You know, we were fearful when he came in because he was this devout evangelical Christian.
Speaker A:And so, you know, we didn't like that.
Speaker A:But we shouldn't have been worried because basically on every issue that they were concerned about, about embryonic stem cell research or at all, you know, they basically got what they wanted.
Speaker A:He was a distinction without a difference.
Speaker A:And that's really sad.
Speaker A:And so in science, I think, you know, I delve deeply and, you know, some other people now are criticizing Francis Collins.
Speaker A: him since the, you know, mid-: Speaker A: s one of the first persons in: Speaker A:And so he was.
Speaker A:In some respects, what's interesting about Francis Collins is not just him.
Speaker A:It's the superstructure of other evangelical leaders who enabled him and platformed him.
Speaker A:Francis Collins became the beloved figure that he did and the wise figure that we should all listen to because he was platformed and enabled by a lot of other Christian leaders, some of whom actually, like Tim Keller, who did this, would have said that they didn't really agree with him, but they platformed him and they wouldn't.
Speaker A:As I write in my book, Tim Keller platformed Francis Collins even though he claimed to disagree with him.
Speaker A:But he wouldn't do similar things for people who are on the other Side.
Speaker A:So this culture, it's not just.
Speaker A:You can't just look at the individuals who are going away.
Speaker A:You have to look at the people around them who are actually enabling them.
Speaker A:So that's science.
Speaker A:We can go on to sex or race or whatever.
Speaker B:Yeah, no, I'm glad that you mentioned Francis Collins because he is a subject that comes up repeatedly in the book and with every time he comes up a different shade of the Stockholm syndrome Christianity shows up like a different way that a particular individual has capitulated to the culture and the consequences of that downstream for our entire nation.
Speaker B:And I like how you.
Speaker B:I think this makes it more concrete for people to understand.
Speaker B:Yes, we can see Stockholm syndrome Christianity all around us, but here is how.
Speaker B:Just placing someone who identifies as a Christian in a position of cultural or political or social power isn't enough.
Speaker B:They need to have.
Speaker B:Have commitments to the biblical faith as opposed to just sort of like slapping a label on them.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And I think you really see that when it comes to, say, sexuality.
Speaker A:And I will say one thing in sexuality, I start my book chapter on that, dealing with heterosexual issues, because I do have a strong biblical view on same sex marriage.
Speaker A:But I do think that it started when churches ceded and stopped talking about heterosexual monogamy, the importance of marriages that are lifelong, trying to support people so that they don't get divorced.
Speaker A:And once you see that, it went from bad to worse.
Speaker A:And so I give an example of.
Speaker A:I mean, what does it say again?
Speaker A:People say, well, we need more Christian celebrities.
Speaker A: Well, in: Speaker A:And they publicly witnessed about their faith, how devout they were for Jesus.
Speaker A:Well, there ends up being a difference because Luke admitted that he had sex outside of marriage before, but he was now trying to be abstinent until marriage.
Speaker A:He was trying to honor that.
Speaker A:Hannah.
Speaker A:Oh, that's shaming me.
Speaker A:And she actually boasted that she had sex four times with one of the other contestants in a one night stand.
Speaker A:And anyone who criticized her was, well, Jesus still loves me.
Speaker A:No one can condemn me because Jesus loves me.
Speaker A:It's just like treating Jesus forgiveness like dirt.
Speaker A:But Hannah, where did she grow up in.
Speaker A:It wasn't Seattle, it wasn't la.
Speaker A:She grew up in the Bible Belt in Alabama.
Speaker A:Again, Houston, we have a problem.
Speaker A:If you have Christian celebrities who are grown up in the Bible Belt who now boast about behaviors that at least they should be mortified about, but boast as good.
Speaker A:What's happening?
Speaker A:What sort of teaching did she get?
Speaker A:I don't know, but it raises questions and on and on.
Speaker A:And so I think the number one thing is that churches need to be much more intentional, even about heterosexual sexual standards and marital covenant.
Speaker A:And I recount how when I was an elder at a particular church where we had a number of leaders go through unbiblical divorces.
Speaker A:And I want to be clear, God can forgive everything.
Speaker A:And so there's healing.
Speaker A:No matter what you've gone through, even if you went through an unbiblical divorce, I'm not about that.
Speaker A:On the other hand, if you don't teach on something and you don't empower them, you're going to get more of what you're not teaching about.
Speaker A:And so in our church we tried to get interest in, well, this is a tragedy.
Speaker A:So how do we help prevent this from happening?
Speaker A:How can we have good teaching?
Speaker A:How can we have mentor couples and do other things?
Speaker A:And there seem to be a pervasive lack of interest to do that.
Speaker A:So I think that it's good for Christians to talk about same sex and transgender issues, but they also need to realize that probably the most important thing they need to be doing is modeling heterosexual faithfulness because that, that is so critically important.
Speaker A:But many of the Christians aren't.
Speaker A:But let's talk about same sex marriage.
Speaker A:This is not something foisted on us just by the gay groups, for example.
Speaker A:And I talk about this.
Speaker A:So the Supreme Court ruling on this, it was decided by one vote.
Speaker A:The person who decided it was not even appointed by a Democrat.
Speaker A:He was not an atheist.
Speaker A:He was unagnostic.
Speaker A:Anthony Kennedy was known as a devout, in fact he was called, prior to being appointed a goody goody Roman Catholic who attended mass each week.
Speaker A:We have the false creation of same sex marriage as a constitutional right, which again, it was never in the Constitution.
Speaker A:That's an invention.
Speaker A:Not because of a Democratic appointed judge, not because of an atheist, not because of a gay person, because of a serious Roman Catholic goody goody.
Speaker A:And similarly in my own state, we had many people who were persecuted because they didn't want to participate in same sex marriages.
Speaker A:So we had a grandmother, Baronell Stutzman, who had a flower shop and she would serve everyone, but when it came to, she wouldn't serve every event and she didn't want to create special arrangements honoring gay weddings because she didn't think same sex marriage is real marriage.
Speaker A:Who was her chief persecutor, wasn't an atheist.
Speaker A:It was our then Catholic attorney General.
Speaker A:Now unfortunately, in my view, our governor.
Speaker A:So I guess I am getting political.
Speaker A:Bob Ferguson, who when he runs for election, touts that he's a member of this Catholic congregation.
Speaker A:He was repersecured.
Speaker A:She's no longer has her flower business anymore.
Speaker A:She was driven out of business because of what Bob Ferguson did.
Speaker A:And not only that, actually, after writing the book, I found out that Bob Ferguson wrote an essay invoking his faith as the reason he was persecuting her.
Speaker B:What?
Speaker B:What?
Speaker B:What?
Speaker A:Well, because, you know, you're defending the humanity of everyone, not her.
Speaker A:But I mean, so, you know, it came out of his faith commitment.
Speaker A:So my point is, again, Houston, we have a problem that I'm all for cultural engagement and we need to do that.
Speaker A:But if you not equipping the people who are in your pews, or if you don't have pews, you know, just seats, if you're not doing that, then how can you expect any different results in the culture?
Speaker B:First of all, I am so enjoying the enthusiasm and passion for this because again, this stuff, it matters so much.
Speaker B:And the sign that this book was going to be.
Speaker B:Was going to be hard nosed in its approach and uncompromising in the right ways, was that you were willing to address heterosexual sexuality first.
Speaker B:There are so many Christians that are.
Speaker B:That it will go against lgbt, same sex, all of that, but sort of like shy away from the notion of heterosexual sexual relationships going all the way back to the sexual revolution.
Speaker B:We don't want to talk about that.
Speaker B:But the way that you leaned into that subject specifically, and that was very early on in the book, was a sign for me that, like, no, we're going to talk about these things head on in ways that might make people uncomfortable because they're not used to having the spotlight on them, particularly with the Bachelorette example.
Speaker B:But again, we're seeing in all this that sort of weakness that exists in churches and pastors and elders that allows in just a little bit of sin, but that opens the door for so much more to come flooding in at the highest levels all the way up to the Supreme Court, as you mentioned.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And local courts.
Speaker A:I mean, in Pennsylvania, they got constitutional gay marriage under their constitution by a Lutheran judge.
Speaker A:Lutheran judge who created that right even before the Supreme Court.
Speaker A:But you know, one other area, and I know this is of interest to you because you've just written on some of the things here.
Speaker A:I want to point out, because this is another uncomfortable topic that I'd say a lot of more conservative evangelicals don't want to face.
Speaker A:They want to face part of it, but not all of it, it so is the race issue.
Speaker A:And I think there is, I fully agree that the critical race theorists and the white fragility people that's all out to lunch and pernicious and too many churches.
Speaker A:I actually talk about a church where I was an elder that ended up leaving established a racial justice committee to go into things and it's all one sided and it demonizes one race over another.
Speaker A:And there's never any ability for redemption because in the woke or perhaps progressive mindset, if you're white, you're always tainted by the original sin.
Speaker A:You can never redeem yourself no matter what you do.
Speaker A:And this is this elevating of races over others and creating this racial animus.
Speaker A:And then also the denial of some of the social problems we're facing with the breakdown of the family because they don't want to touch it because they fear that it may impact disproportionately people in different communities.
Speaker A:So I get the conservatives are right on that.
Speaker A:Where I am concerned is that that's all they talk about and they don't realize that in fact our nation does have a tragic history when it comes to race.
Speaker A:Especially I'd say after Darwinian racism, sort of Darwinism of the 19th century really argued a very harsh form of that certain races were more evolved than others and that was the white race.
Speaker A:And it was just a very unbiblical, very unchristian.
Speaker A:And many Christians, Christians did horrific things, especially in the south with lynchings and things.
Speaker A:I write about some of them in the book.
Speaker A:That's going to be very uncomfortable for people to read.
Speaker A:But we're not in the same situation today and things have changed.
Speaker A:But by not at least acknowledging that you're playing into a lot of the caricatures.
Speaker A:And then for the Christians who just arm themselves with, with the woke and white fragility and these ideas that are completely anti Christian, you're leaving the people in the pews with what choice?
Speaker A:You're basically saying well the Christian view is white fragility, which is not and there is no other option.
Speaker A:I mean I talk about in my church where I actually tried to get the committee to read other things like by Thomas Sowell or Vodi Bakam or others and they didn't want to for them that's not really talking about race issues.
Speaker A:So it had to be the stuff that I was would think in my sense is really anti Christian in many sense.
Speaker A:But if you aren't willing to talk about the biblical view of equality then you create this vacuum and you have I think especially a lot of young men now who, because the woke stuff is so bad, admittedly so, and they don't see any solid biblical teaching of what biblical equality of being created in the image of God means, they gravitate to.
Speaker A:I'd say some bad actors who are just as bad, in fact in some sense are worse because they are wearing Christianity on their sleeve when it's anything but, who are calling Hitler their hero or arguing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites or who are just doing really vile things.
Speaker A:And some people are being drawn into that unawares.
Speaker A:But here's where my critique of the sort of the WOKE evangelicals, if you will, they'll say that and they'll denounce that, but they won't understand that they helped create that.
Speaker A:Because again, there's a vacuum.
Speaker A:If you're not standing up for what the Bible really says about, I'd say human equality and human dignity and you get the bastardized version, excuse my language, that the secular left offers, then you're really creating this vacuum that's opening people up to hearing these bad actors on the right.
Speaker B:That's such a great observation, is you create the conditions that unfortunately men react to.
Speaker B:Now, we should be responding, we should be responding biblically with the word of God as our foundations instead of reacting emotionally.
Speaker B:And you can also set the stage for that reaction or that overreaction that then you have to attempt to correct back in the other direction, which then gets cries of, oh, you're just a leftist.
Speaker B:And so we swerve back and forth across the road.
Speaker B:It's like, it's not supposed to be this way.
Speaker B:But again, the capitulation over many decades has led to this overcompensation, overreaction now in the opposite direction.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And that's what they don't see.
Speaker A:Similarly, you know, many of the people who say, well, we shouldn't be focusing on biblical teaching on sex because the Bible speaks a lot more about poverty and so we should do and social justice.
Speaker A:But they ignore the fact that at least in America and around the world there are different causes of poverty.
Speaker A:But at least in America, the biggest predictor of long term intractable intergenerational poverty is if you have a broken family.
Speaker B:That's right.
Speaker A:So what happens in the bedroom doesn't stay in the bedroom.
Speaker A:And so I find it.
Speaker A:And actually this clarified for me, I sort of understood it before I wrote the book, but it really clarified for me that all these people talk about, well, we need to spend more time on social justice and poverty were the same people who are stating biblical sexuality, and they didn't see that in fact, they, again, were creating the conditions.
Speaker A:I mean, if you want to create the conditions for more permanent, intractable, terrible poverty.
Speaker A:Ignore biblical teachings of sexuality.
Speaker B:Yep.
Speaker A:I mean, and so they're actually.
Speaker A:They're actually creating, in part or fueling the problem that they say that they're so impassioned about.
Speaker A:And I think, you know, it's something they probably are impassioned about, but they're not recognizing that their seeding of these other biblical teachings is actually helping to create the very problem that they say they're concerned about.
Speaker B:That's right.
Speaker B:That's right.
Speaker B:And when you give up, when you let the guard down, when you let the boundaries down, when you let the barriers down, you start saying, well, maybe the Bible is true, but maybe it's not accurate, or maybe those aren't the exact words or the exact teachings, and you start shaving off little bits.
Speaker B:It's really not that long until everything that the Bible teaches about how to be a moral and just nation, or how to be a moral and just family, or a moral and just individual, it all comes collapsing afterwards.
Speaker B:And then you end up in a situation like where Seattle Pacific University eventually got to, where it's like, what makes this.
Speaker B:Or many other institutions as well, what makes this an identifiably Christian university or institution or, you know, leader of the nih, Besides the fact that you just say you are.
Speaker A:Yeah, it actually, it becomes a.
Speaker A:A label that.
Speaker A:That is in some sense a cultural identifier but has very little content.
Speaker A:And that's.
Speaker A:You know, I know people dismiss the slippery slope argument.
Speaker A:And, you know, logically, not all things progress to various areas.
Speaker A:But I do think, and I write in the book, that if you're taking your cues from the rest of culture, then you're guaranteeing a slippery slope because there's no.
Speaker A:You're not standing on anything principled.
Speaker A:And I actually think one reason.
Speaker A:Look at someone like Tim Keller, who I actually view as a Presbyterian pastor, if people who are listening don't know, who's now deceased, but was beloved by many, he came out of the evangelical and I think doctrinally orthodox part of Christianity.
Speaker A:But if you look at Tim Keller 15 years before he died, you'd find lots of solid teaching.
Speaker A:You'd find him several years before he died signing statements about biblical marriage.
Speaker A:But if you looked at him in the last segment of his life, he was getting increasingly.
Speaker A:He didn't disown that, but he would downplay and he'd be focusing his attacks on fellow theologically conservative evangelicals.
Speaker A:And, well, what changed?
Speaker A:Well, the culture changed.
Speaker A:And he had this large congregation that I've actually worshiped at great ministry, originally in Manhattan, in secular Manhattan.
Speaker A:But, you know, 20 years ago, 15 years ago, you could make a biblical argument or an argument for biblical marriage that was more acceptable.
Speaker A:Most Americans actually accepted that to some degree.
Speaker A:But then that changed.
Speaker A:And so the point is, with the Stockholm syndrome, Christian is as the culture changes, you change along with it.
Speaker A:And so there is no solid ground.
Speaker A:And even if you have some solid ground, if you're so wedded to what the culture's understanding and the cultural elites standing are, as the cultural elites become more depraved, you're going to be pulled right along with them.
Speaker A:That's right.
Speaker B:You're going to be just going to be dragged right off the edge of the cliff.
Speaker B:And it becomes increasingly difficult for someone who's on that road to say no.
Speaker B:Here is where I'm going to take a stand.
Speaker B:I've talked to so many Christians who are like, well, I'm going to keep their content creators, I'm going to keep my beliefs under wraps.
Speaker B:And then when I get to the big stage, that's when I'm going to let everyone know.
Speaker B:It's like, no, that's probably not how that's going to go at all.
Speaker B:You have to take a stand immediately or as soon as possible, as soon as you realize what's going on.
Speaker B:Otherwise, the likelihood that you're just going to end up going with that flow and then wake up or say, now we've gone too far is far too high.
Speaker B:And by that point, it's already too late.
Speaker A:I mean, it depends.
Speaker A:I think you're right in a lot of cases, but I think depending on what sort of profession you're in, and if your views are really countercultural, you may have to go deep six those views for a while before you can really articulate them.
Speaker A:And so I am sympathetic to that.
Speaker A:But a lot of the people who say they have to do that, they're really doing it because those views aren't really fundamentally their views.
Speaker A:And so I think you're right to call that out.
Speaker A:But I would say that I have seen other cases of people who do are careful and keep their head down.
Speaker A:And in fact, I would advise students, say, if you're.
Speaker A:You were a science student who say, doubts Darwinian evolution, trying to get your PhD, you don't want to broadcast that fact.
Speaker A:And I remember actually counseling Giving advice to someone who was actually invited and got into a good graduate program and a good lab and they weren't asked about it.
Speaker A:I don't think people should lie, but they weren't pressed on their views on it, but they felt, felt just obliged that they needed to spill their guts to their secularist lab manager.
Speaker A:And of course, once they did, they weren't going to graduate school anymore.
Speaker A:And so I think that when you're in a hostile culture, there are various ways to survive and then thrive and hopefully to change the culture.
Speaker A:But one of them is, I think it is actually important to have people in, in the elites, but it's important to have good people in the elites.
Speaker A:And there are some strategies to do that.
Speaker A:I think in many cases, many of the weakest, most wimpy, if you will, Christians among the elites, their problem started a lot earlier with they were never really discipled or trained in a way of what does it mean to be they're really given an easy Christianity that as long as you say Jesus is your savior, it doesn't matter what you believe on anything, anything else.
Speaker A:And that's never true.
Speaker A:That's just not true.
Speaker A:But if that's your mode of discipleship, then you get people like the ones we get.
Speaker B:And so, yeah, yeah, I mean, in this situation where a student is applying for a graduate program, you're probably not going to change the posture of this institution through your application.
Speaker B:That's probably not the right, that's probably not the right place to do it.
Speaker B:So you're right, there are exceptions and there are ways where it's like, well, maybe there is a strategic, wisest serpents, harmless as doves kind of posture to it.
Speaker B:But in general, I would also say that it's necessary for more people than currently are to be upfront about their beliefs and take a bold stand.
Speaker B:I think you can.
Speaker A:I completely agree with that.
Speaker A:And in fact, it's those trailblazers that then allow the people who don't feel that they can speak up either for good reasons or not so good reasons because they're just, just don't have the courage to speak up to then be able to weigh in.
Speaker A:And we've seen that actually in the argument over intelligent design versus sort of unguided evolution.
Speaker A:A lot of our early fellows like Mike Behe and many others got a lot of persecution and were tried to be silenced in a lot of different ways.
Speaker A:And they took a lot of flack.
Speaker A:But I would say because they did that for say, 20 years, things began to open up and some of their things arguments are now much more in the mainstream.
Speaker A:Similarly, what we've seen this just flip over the last couple of years is in transgenderism and kids where you would be canceled or fired if even two or three years ago you raised a critique of that.
Speaker A:You might still be today in some parts of America, but there's been a dramatic seismic shift.
Speaker A:And that was not because the people who weren't willing to speak out were secretly not agreeing with it.
Speaker A:No, it's because there were some trailblazers who were willing to take a lot of flak and get hurt by articulating the truth.
Speaker A:And so the reason that the so called Overton window shifted on that was not because all the people who are silent it.
Speaker A:And so you're exactly right.
Speaker A:If you're really wanting to get to a more healthful culture, it is certainly true.
Speaker A:You need a brigade of people who are fearless and willing to speak the truth even when it's unpopular.
Speaker A:And then my plea to other Christians, first of all is you need to know what's right.
Speaker A:Because then you could argue what's prudential and what you should do, but if you aren't really clear on what your faith really teaches, then you can't even get to that other thing.
Speaker A:But then I say if you feel you can't speak out, there are often many ways that you can, things that you can do to help facilitate things even behind the scenes.
Speaker A:Where it might be shepherding in academia, you might be able to be shepherding like minded students and protect them so that they do get their PhDs.
Speaker A:And I've seen that with some professors in other organizations you might be able to be say, even if you don't want to identify with someone's views in the organization, if you see them being personalized, you might be able to raise things like, well, the civil rights laws don't allow us to do this.
Speaker A:You might be able to raise things in a more moderate way that would still defend those people.
Speaker A:So I do think that this is I fully agree.
Speaker A:Christians need to be more engaged and really need to prayerfully ask what can I do and what does God expect me to do?
Speaker A:But I do think that people are in different situations.
Speaker A:It's not one size fits all.
Speaker A:But if you're simply using excuses, it's too costly for me to do anything that likely is not right.
Speaker A:I mean there likely is something that you can do and that God is calling you to do and you need to think that through.
Speaker B:Yeah, I think discovery science is a great example of that.
Speaker B:It's like this is, you know, I think you quote the quote that Francis Schaeffer uses that he has been attributed to Luther, but that is not Luther about.
Speaker B:Maybe you can speak a little bit about that because that seems to be the sore spot that needs to get pushed on.
Speaker A:Yeah, this is really.
Speaker A:I mean, I sort of wish Luther had said it, but it doesn't.
Speaker A:It's a great statement, regardless.
Speaker A:It's basically this idea if you.
Speaker A:You're a Christian and you're preaching on everything that God teaches, except those areas that are at the front lines that the enemy is actually attacking.
Speaker A:So I'm teaching Jesus as a savior, but I'm not willing to teach about that there are only two biological sexes, and that means there are only two genders because there are two sexes and that you're never born in the wrong body, then you're not really fully preaching the gospel.
Speaker A:Gospel.
Speaker A:Because if the gospel is under attack in this one area, and that's the one area that you're not willing to defend on, you're basically opening up a breach to take it all down.
Speaker A:And so, you know Christians who pat themselves on the back, well, you know, I'm faithful in this area, so I don't need to be faithful over there.
Speaker A:Are deluding themselves at best.
Speaker A:And that we're called, and especially I'd say pastors and those who are equipping pastors, elders, Christian teachers, those who are equipping the next generation and the current generation of Christians who are going into the professions, going into the arts, going into every part of America.
Speaker A:They need to be equipped or else we get more Francis Collins.
Speaker A:I mean, that really is the.
Speaker A:It's great to send Christians out into culture, but only if you've equipped them to actually act like.
Speaker A:Like Christians.
Speaker B:Maybe you can talk a little bit, just briefly, about the resources that are associated with the book.
Speaker B:I think that the book has a website attached to it.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So StockHolmsyndroMechri Christianity.com and StockHolmsyndroMechi Christianity.com you can find lots of free resources like, are you considering a Christian college for your kids?
Speaker A:There's an essay there where I go through 10 questions you should ask your Christian college.
Speaker A:That will help because I know a lot of parents are concerned about that.
Speaker A:And more broadly, I think.
Speaker A:I think earlier in our conversation, you pointed out that my book doesn't just.
Speaker A:Even though we spent most of the time talking about the problems, the book is in three sections.
Speaker A:There's the problems.
Speaker A:It's the roots of the problems, which are actually part of the way that you can address it and then it's solutions.
Speaker A:And where in one of the chapters I give like 21 things people could do.
Speaker A:If you're a church board member, if you are an elder or a deacon, if you're a teacher, if you're a parent, or even if you're just a grandparent, there are things that everyone can do do to be faithful.
Speaker B:So what are just some examples for those who might be listening?
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:So one that may seem, well, this doesn't seem important, but what I say is do no harm.
Speaker A:And what do I mean by that?
Speaker A:Well, I think we're each called to give an inventory or think prayerfully with God about how am I stewarding my time, talent and trust treasure.
Speaker A:What sort of church are you going to?
Speaker A:Are you going to a church that is biblical and equipping people or one that has gone off the rails?
Speaker A:Because if you're supporting that church with your body, with your money, with your volunteer time, and you know that what it's doing is not right in many respects, I said you're worse than say the pastor who may be off the rails because you know that what he's doing is not right, but you're actually helping to facilitate it even though you know what is going on is not right.
Speaker A:Similarly, if you graduated from a Christian university 20 years ago that was a great Christian university, but you know now that it's sort of gone off the rails.
Speaker A:But every year out of this misplaced sense of devotion, you write a check to them.
Speaker A:Again, you're worse than the out of control faculty there because in some sense they think they're doing right even though they're not, but you know what they're doing is wrong and you're, you're writing a check.
Speaker A:And you know, this may seem simple, but I'll have to tell you the number of I'm not going to name names here, but philanthropists of Christians who are heavy hitters in various ways, who themselves are personally orthodox, but who are bankrolling bad things out of misplaced senses of emotion, or who are active in churches that they know aren't really that they themselves are convicted of.
Speaker A:If Christians alone, if every Christian took seriously for them to do no harm, for them to make sure that even if they weren't going to be supporting good things, I think we should be.
Speaker A:Even if you're not going to write checks to discovery institutions, if you're just making sure you're not writing checks to the Bad guys.
Speaker A:If you're not actually lending your volunteer time to a group that is actually doing bad things, we'd be in a much better situation now.
Speaker A:So that's one thing.
Speaker A:One other thing is if you're a parent who's really raising your kids, and I know in general Christians will say, oh, of course I'm raising my kids, but is that really true?
Speaker A:Or is TikTok raising your kids?
Speaker A:Or are the public schools raising your kids?
Speaker A:Or you could go on and on about the other influences.
Speaker A:And whether you send your kids to public school, I think increasingly that is not a great option, or a private school, or you homeschool.
Speaker A:Ultimately, if you're a Christian parent, you're responsible for the, in God's eyes, for the shaping of your kids and the mentoring of your kids.
Speaker A:And so what are you doing to actually be in control of that, other than TikTok or other social media?
Speaker A:And so I think that's another thing I would say if anyone's listening who is a board member or involved in leadership, please do get my book, because you alluded to this.
Speaker A:But when Seattle Pacific, sort of the watershed moment, in my view of when it went off the rails, it wasn't because of the president at the time, who I think was pushing it in a bad direction, or the woke faculty.
Speaker A:They certainly were there.
Speaker A:It was actually because, and this is still hard for me to deal with, we had a personally orthodox, even personally theologically conservative board of trustees, but they didn't really have the courage of their convictions.
Speaker A:So the people pushing in the other direction had the courage of their convictions.
Speaker A:But the really deciding point at how SPU was lost, in my view, wasn't because of the progressive faculty or the heterodox faculty.
Speaker A:It was because the theologically conservative board of trustees, when push came to shove, was not willing to uphold the standards that they said that their institution was for.
Speaker A:And I've seen time and again in Christian institutions where the real fundamental failure, if you're called to be on a board, your number one thing is not raising money.
Speaker A:You may be told otherwise.
Speaker A:We're on it because we want you to help us raise money.
Speaker A:No.
Speaker A:At a Christian institution, whether it be a church, a Christian school, a Christian university, Christian parachurch group, your number one responsibility is staying faithful to the mission.
Speaker A:And there are all sorts of ways that you can do that.
Speaker A:And I talk about one like the power of no and how on boards they govern by consensus, things that you can where you can really force a discussion and that can change things.
Speaker A:And you can find allies on the boards.
Speaker A:The reason I hit that is because I actually do think I see a lot of articles from Christians.
Speaker A:Oh, woe is me.
Speaker A:Why did Wheaton go this way?
Speaker A:Or why is Fuller Theological Seminar going this way?
Speaker A:And they focus on the symptoms of some of the faculty and they don't focus enough on the boards because the boards have a lot of culpability.
Speaker A:And unless Christians get serious about their leadership entities, including boards of groups, you're going to get what we've been getting.
Speaker B:Again, I mentioned it earlier, but I love the passion, I love the enthusiasm.
Speaker B:And that really shows through in reading the book.
Speaker B:I mean, you can really feel that this is a personal issue.
Speaker B:It's something that you feel very passionate about, have thought very deeply about, have experienced firsthand.
Speaker B:And that's why reading the book felt so much like a.
Speaker B:It feels like a warning, like a clarion call, but also with a call to arms, a call to action, where you make very concrete for the different audiences who may be reading.
Speaker B:These are the things that we are called to do.
Speaker B:These are the things we must do.
Speaker B:These are the things we can do to really help push back on this trend.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Well, thank you.
Speaker A:I, I sort of felt driven to write it and it was a blessing to be able to get it done.
Speaker A:And I hope it will be helpful to people.
Speaker B:And yeah, I'll definitely encourage people to read it.
Speaker B:The book again, is Stockholm Syndrome Christianity.
Speaker B:Thank you so much, Dr. West, for authoring this book.
Speaker B:Where would you like to send people to find out more about you and what you do?
Speaker A:Yeah, so again, I think the easiest place is go to Stockholm syndromechristianity.com But if you're interested in me more generally, I do have a website, John G. West.com that has my interest in everything from C.S.
Speaker A:lewis to Walt Disney to American constitutionalism and religious liberty.
Speaker A:So if you want to find out more about me personally, John G. West.com great.
Speaker B:And that'll be linked in the show notes.
Speaker B:Thank you so much, Dr. West.
Speaker A:Thanks, Will.
Speaker A:Sam sat.
