Mike Duran's Blog, page 4

Is Belief in Demons a Gateway to QAnon?

C.S. Lewis famously said, in his introduction to The Screwtape Letters, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”

Apparently, the authors of a recent article at Vox, Revisiting the Christian fantasy novels that shaped decades of conservative hysteria, have succumbed to the first of those errors. Not only do they openly sneer at those who believe “Angels and demons [are] engaged in very real, literal battles for humanity,” they also frame such beliefs as “conspiracy theories.”

The basis for their critique is Frank Peretti’s This Present Darkness series. First published in 1986, the story revolves around a plot to control the citizens of the small town of Ashton. Behind a powerful New Age group are demonic entities, manipulating the unsaved. However, a spiritual battle ensues involving angels and prayerful Christians seeking to quell the darkness. The book has since sold over 2.5 million copies.

The authors at Vox assert that Peretti’s novels “were formative and fundamental” in shaping “the dominant worldview of many right-wing US conservatives, especially white evangelicals.” What is this “dominant worldview”? Well, apparently it’s not just the belief that spiritual warfare is real, but that it impinges upon social, religious, and political structures.

Peretti wasn’t creating the concept of spiritual warfare. The notion of angels and demons battling among us has been around for centuries; the Christian idea of humans helping them comes to us from Ephesians. In the 1980s, such rhetoric percolated on talk radio, in contemporary Christian music, and in churches, all at odds with modern mainstream culture. But his novels, with their thorough version of an embattled but entirely righteous Christian culture, are an early articulation of what has become the reigning modern evangelical conspiracy theory.

So what exactly is this “reigning modern evangelical conspiracy theory”? Well, it’s not “the concept of spiritual warfare,” because that “has been around for centuries” and finds root in Scripture itself. According to the authors at Vox, the “conspiratorial” elements of evangelical belief in spiritual warfare is that it intersects “with modern mainstream culture.” So belief in spiritual warfare is rather harmless until it is superimposed over real-life. The only demon the materialist will entertain is the one who is found solely in fiction. In other words, belief in devilish deception is tolerated so long as it isn’t traced to politics and popular culture. God forbid we find the devil in our schools, theaters, or state capitols.

Belief in devilish deception is tolerated so long as it isn’t traced to politics and popular culture. God forbid we find the devil in our schools, theaters, or state capitols.

However, this is exactly what the scolds at Vox appear to insinuate

The Darkness duology arrived at the peak of Satanic Panic, when, as Peretti later wrote, “demons — and their doctrines — were gaining a weird, glassy-eyed respect from the popular culture.” Peretti envisioned a new kind of Christian fiction that visualized and vivified his idea of modern spiritual warfare: Angels and demons engaged in very real, literal battles for humanity, often just out of sight of their impassioned human charges.

Peretti’s offense, it seems, was not just in “vivifying” this idea of “modern spiritual warfare,” but in framing it as involving “literal battles for humanity.” How dare this Christian author suggest that a real devil is really out to deceive people! You see, modern men cannot have literal devils. The concept of spiritual warfare is only permissible insofar as it remains a gauzy, allegorical exercise. Such “disbelief in the devil” is what seemingly characterizes this critique from the authors at Vox.

Modern men cannot have literal devils. The concept of spiritual warfare is only permissible insofar as it remains a gauzy, allegorical exercise.

In fact, their mention of “Satanic Panic” bears this out. The term has become a pejorative for paranoid evangelical witch hunters of the 1980’s. While the original Panic focused upon claims of Satanic cults and practices, as the movement spread it encompassed other forms of occultism, mysticism, and New Age esotericism. Which is why one of the authors noted sarcastically that in Peretti’s novels, “The devil’s primary weapon is New Age spirituality.” Please notice: the assumption throughout is that Satanism, occultism, and New Age mysticism are unduly scapegoated by Peretti and his ilk. Furthermore, this view of a literal devil using New Age or occult philosophy to deceive the world, as wielded by Peretti, is a gateway into QAnon-style conspiracism.

A recent survey revealed that a large number of right-wing Republicans — and 27 percent of white evangelicals — believe the central conceit of QAnon, the false conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is fighting high-powered Democrats and other powerful liberals who are engaged in sexually abusing, kidnapping, and sex trafficking children. The “liberal child-napping sex cult” theme of QAnon, and its recent “groomer” variant, seems to be the only thing literally different from the Peretti novels; everything else positing a high-powered government scheme to control the world and eradicate Christian culture is more or less identical.

It didn’t take long before the recent charges that schools and media outlets are “grooming” children for LGBTQ+ embrace was labeled as a conspiracy theory. In Child Grooming in Public Schools Is No Conspiracy Theory, Christopher Rufo notes how quickly charges of conspiracism were leveled against concerned parents.

In the wake of the controversy surrounding Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, which prohibits public schools from teaching gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade, the national media has sought to paint conservative opposition as hysterical, anti-LGBTQ, and conspiracy-minded. The New York Times, for example, accused conservatives of having a “freakout” about imaginary “grooming” in public schools, and the Washington Post dismissed concerns about sexual abuse by teachers as a “QAnon conspiracy.”

Likewise, it does not seem a coincidence that the writers of the Vox piece so easily connect Peretti’s “vivifying” of the concept of “modern spiritual warfare as part of an ongoing “conservative hysteria,” specifically as it relates to QAnon.

Also, not coincidentally, many of Christianity’s core beliefs are now being grouped among bizarre conspiracy theories. For example, some suggest that creationism bears all the marks of a conspiracy theory. This means that Christians who believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days — a belief that was once common among Fundamentalists — are now, basically, cultists. Another alleges that those who believe in the Resurrection of Christ are “dangerous to others and themselves” and in need of psychological help. Still another author conflates a belief in demons and spiritual warfare with conspiracy theories.

So does a belief in demons or spiritual warfare make one susceptible to QAnon? Does belief in a literal devil who “masquerades as an angel of light” (II Cor. 11:4) and seeks to “lead the whole world astray” (Rev. 12:9) automatically make one a conspiracy theorist?

Christians may avoid the label of conspiracist by keeping their demons in the realm of ‘fiction.’ Problem is, not even the Bible does that.

Is Belief in Demons or Spiritual Warfare a Gateway to QAnon?

C.S. Lewis famously said, in his introduction to The Screwtape Letters, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”

Apparently, the authors of a recent article at Vox, Revisiting the Christian fantasy novels that shaped decades of conservative hysteria, have succumbed to the first of those errors. Not only do they openly sneer at those who believe “Angels and demons [are] engaged in very real, literal battles for humanity,” they also frame such beliefs as “conspiracy theories.”

The basis for their critique is Frank Peretti’s This Present Darkness series. First published in 1986, the story revolves around a plot to control the citizens of the small town of Ashton. Behind a powerful New Age group are demonic entities, manipulating the unsaved. However, a spiritual battle ensues involving angels and prayerful Christians seeking to quell the darkness. The book has since sold over 2.5 million copies.

The authors at Vox assert that Peretti’s novels “were formative and fundamental” in shaping “the dominant worldview of many right-wing US conservatives, especially white evangelicals.” What is this “dominant worldview”? Well, apparently it’s not just the belief that spiritual warfare is real, but that it impinges upon social, religious, and political structures.

Peretti wasn’t creating the concept of spiritual warfare. The notion of angels and demons battling among us has been around for centuries; the Christian idea of humans helping them comes to us from Ephesians. In the 1980s, such rhetoric percolated on talk radio, in contemporary Christian music, and in churches, all at odds with modern mainstream culture. But his novels, with their thorough version of an embattled but entirely righteous Christian culture, are an early articulation of what has become the reigning modern evangelical conspiracy theory.

So what exactly is this “reigning modern evangelical conspiracy theory”? Well, it’s not “the concept of spiritual warfare,” because that “has been around for centuries” and finds root in Scripture itself. According to the authors at Vox, the “conspiratorial” elements of evangelical belief in spiritual warfare is that it intersects “with modern mainstream culture.” So belief in spiritual warfare is rather harmless until it is superimposed over real-life. The only demon the materialist will entertain is the one who is found solely in fiction. In other words, belief in devilish deception is tolerated so long as it isn’t traced to politics and popular culture. God forbid we find the devil in our schools, theaters, or state capitols.

Belief in devilish deception is tolerated so long as it isn’t traced to politics and popular culture. God forbid we find the devil in our schools, theaters, or state capitols.

However, this is exactly what the scolds at Vox appear to insinuate

The Darkness duology arrived at the peak of Satanic Panic, when, as Peretti later wrote, “demons — and their doctrines — were gaining a weird, glassy-eyed respect from the popular culture.” Peretti envisioned a new kind of Christian fiction that visualized and vivified his idea of modern spiritual warfare: Angels and demons engaged in very real, literal battles for humanity, often just out of sight of their impassioned human charges.

Peretti’s offense, it seems, was not just in “vivifying” this idea of “modern spiritual warfare,” but in framing it as involving “literal battles for humanity.” How dare this Christian author suggest that a real devil is really out to deceive people! You see, modern men cannot have literal devils. The concept of spiritual warfare is only permissible insofar as it remains a gauzy, allegorical exercise. Such “disbelief in the devil” is what seemingly characterizes this critique from the authors at Vox.

Modern men cannot have literal devils. The concept of spiritual warfare is only permissible insofar as it remains a gauzy, allegorical exercise.

In fact, their mention of “Satanic Panic” bears this out. The term has become a pejorative for paranoid evangelical witch hunters of the 1980’s. While the original Panic focused upon claims of Satanic cults and practices, as the movement spread it encompassed other forms of occultism, mysticism, and New Age esotericism. Which is why one of the authors noted sarcastically that in Peretti’s novels, “The devil’s primary weapon is New Age spirituality.” Please notice: the assumption throughout is that Satanism, occultism, and New Age mysticism are unduly scapegoated by Peretti and his ilk. Furthermore, this view of a literal devil using New Age or occult philosophy to deceive the world, as wielded by Peretti, is a gateway into QAnon-style conspiracism.

A recent survey revealed that a large number of right-wing Republicans — and 27 percent of white evangelicals — believe the central conceit of QAnon, the false conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is fighting high-powered Democrats and other powerful liberals who are engaged in sexually abusing, kidnapping, and sex trafficking children. The “liberal child-napping sex cult” theme of QAnon, and its recent “groomer” variant, seems to be the only thing literally different from the Peretti novels; everything else positing a high-powered government scheme to control the world and eradicate Christian culture is more or less identical.

It didn’t take long before the recent charges that schools and media outlets are “grooming” children for LGBTQ+ embrace was labeled as a conspiracy theory. In Child Grooming in Public Schools Is No Conspiracy Theory, Christopher Rufo notes how quickly charges of conspiracism were leveled against concerned parents.

In the wake of the controversy surrounding Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, which prohibits public schools from teaching gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade, the national media has sought to paint conservative opposition as hysterical, anti-LGBTQ, and conspiracy-minded. The New York Times, for example, accused conservatives of having a “freakout” about imaginary “grooming” in public schools, and the Washington Post dismissed concerns about sexual abuse by teachers as a “QAnon conspiracy.”

Likewise, it does not seem a coincidence that the writers of the Vox piece so easily connect Peretti’s “vivifying” of the concept of “modern spiritual warfare as part of an ongoing “conservative hysteria,” specifically as it relates to QAnon.

Also, not coincidentally, many of Christianity’s core beliefs are now being grouped among bizarre conspiracy theories. For example, some suggest that creationism bears all the marks of a conspiracy theory. This means that Christians who believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days — a belief that was once common among Fundamentalists — are now, basically, cultists. Another alleges that those who believe in the Resurrection of Christ are “dangerous to others and themselves” and in need of psychological help. Still another author conflates a belief in demons and spiritual warfare with conspiracy theories.

So does a belief in demons or spiritual warfare make one susceptible to QAnon? Does belief in a literal devil who “masquerades as an angel of light” (II Cor. 11:4) and seeks to “lead the whole world astray” (Rev. 12:9) automatically make one a conspiracy theorist?

Christians may avoid the label of conspiracist by keeping their demons in the realm of ‘fiction.’ Problem is, not even the Bible does that.

My Latest Commentary at Lorehaven

From my latest article at Lorehaven Amazon ‘Rings of Power’ Promos Threaten to Burn Middle-Earth in the Fires of Industry:

The Lord of the Rings is an important cultural artifact. Like most cultural artifacts and symbols, it emerged from a specific context. Understanding the historical settings and influences of cultural byproducts often brings richness and clarity to their structure or message.

However, colonizing Middle-earth for the sake of diversity is an abdication of the author’s creative vision. The push for diversity threatens to rip creative contexts from the very icons we claim to honor. Globalization gives us unprecedented access to numerous cultural artifacts, but inevitably strips cultures and their commodities from their contexts. Populating Middle-earth with Botswanan dwarves or Arabic elves may please Equality and Diversity Officers everywhere, but it ignores the story’s historical roots (both literally and figuratively).

You can read the entire piece HERE.

Is the Vampire Archetype a Reaction to Purity Culture or Promiscuity?

Literary criticism tends to follow the spirit of its age. This is nowhere more evident than in the genre of horror.

More recent literary interpretations of seminal works of horror like Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde have leaned into critical theory and postmodern deconstruction, giving way to interpretive excess and reductive textual nit-picking. Whereas Bram Stoker’s Dracula was initially read as a reaction to Victorian era mores, as culture drifted further away from those values, the “monster” took on more sympathetic, if not heroic, proportions. Similarly, stories like Frankenstein were initially viewed as cautionary tales against playing God. Yet such obvious interpretations are now far too mundane. Now critics view the tale through the lens of queer theory and transexuality, with the Monster even representing “aspects of body dysmorphia.” Likewise, Stoker’s Dracula has been charged with everything from misogyny, to racism, to homophobia, even “ecophobia” or “fear of the unknown in nature” (via “gothic ecocriticism”).

As Professor Elizabeth Miller summarized, “The text of Dracula has been subjected over the years to a painstaking search for linguistic fig-leaves as words are squeezed for every erotic potential.” A recent article at Tor magazine is a reminder of the tedious textual wringing that Stoker’s tale continues to endure. 

Pastor and podcaster J.R. Forasteros’ piece entitled Fear of Desire: Dracula, Purity Culture, and the Sins of the Church is a good example of how postmodern deconstruction induces interpretive over-reach. He writes,

Monsters are omens; they warn us something isn’t right. The vampire has, for centuries, been warning us that the Church has a problem with desire. That rather than do the difficult work of discerning how we might rescue a message of liberation from the forces of oppression that pervert it, we have settled for demonizing those we’ve shoved to the margins, the easier to cast them out. In doing so, we have become the very monsters from whom we claim to offer protection.

Apparently, for Forasteros , the real “monster” of Dracula is the Christian Church. It has succumbed to “forces of oppression,” perverted its intended message, and “settled for demonizing” the marginalized. So it is no longer the spawn of hell (vampires) that we should fear, but the soldier of the cross.

More specifically, Forasteros frames “sexual desire” as a bogie created by the Church.

Vampires—as Stoker and {Anne] Rice imagine them—are monsters that arose from Christianity’s particular fascination with desire, particularly sexual desire.

The Church’s “particular fascination with [sexual] desire” has culminated in something called Purity Culture.

Apparently, it is no longer the spawn of hell (vampires) that we should fear, but the soldier of the cross.

Joe Carter describes the Purity Culture movement this way:

“Purity culture” is the term often used for the evangelical movement that attempts to promote a biblical view of purity (1 Thess. 4:3-8) by discouraging dating and promoting virginity before marriage, often through the use of tools such as purity pledges, symbols such as purity rings, and events such as purity balls.

Criticisms of Purity Culture come in two different forms. On one hand were those who claimed “it overemphasized the importance of sex, de-emphasized grace, and added unnecessary rules to male-female relationships.” On the other hand are those who “reject the biblical perspective on sexuality and frame their concerns on secularized (or in the case of some Christians, antinomian) views of sexuality.”

While Purity Culture has had plenty of critics, and in many cases deservedly so, Foresteros clearly intends to ensure it is framed in the most deliciously despicable way possible. He writes,

Purity culture is rooted in white, hetero, cis-gendered patriarchy. As such, Purity Culture defines sex, sexuality, marriage and family narrowly (ironically, not through the lens of the cultures found in the Bible but through the lens of the modern nuclear family). And thus, desire is dangerous. Desire is, we might say, monstrous.

While the problems with Purity Culture are well-chronicled, many of the claims, including Forasteros’, are inflated. As a result, nowadays Purity Culture is blamed for all manner of evil: encouraging “Rape Culture,” inciting incest, making some women fat, causing others to become afraid of men, shaming victims, and the list goes on. All the while, testimonials or teachings of Purity Culture are commonly mocked and its supporters are often caricatured as narrow-minded medieval prudes.

This may be the first time, however, that this short-lived evangelical movement has been equated with the vampire archetype.

Of course, Forasteros is correct when he writes that “Vampire stories are always about desires.” Where he errs is in framing “desire” as something monstrous to Christians. Within this interpretive framework, the vampire “embodies the Church’s fear of desire.”

…by externalizing our fear of desire into a (fictional) form we can exorcize (by way of a stake to the heart), we imagine we have defeated the monster. Just as by externalizing our fear of desire into a (female) form we can control (through purity rings, one-piece bathing suits, and calls for modesty), we imagine we have conquered desire.

Through this interpretative lens, one is able to demonize the Church but also the traditional sexual mores she espouses. Thus, the Church becomes the true monster and her “fear of desire,” a mutation.

Contrast Forasteros’ approach with that of E. Michal Jones’. In Monsters from the Id, Jones posits that the origins of modern horror are as a reaction to the Enlightenment worldview. It was the Enlightenment’s subversion of religion, rejection of the supernatural, challenge of traditional morality, acclamation of man’s primary urges, and scientific pretension which created the classic monster archetypes like Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Horror fiction, Jones argues, was a reaction to the sexual decadence of the Enlightenment. Rather than being a critique of Victorian mores, as many commonly interpret the text, Dracula is the evil spawned by the abandonment of said mores.

In this sense, Dracula is not about “staking” sexual desire, or more specifically a “fear of desire,” as Forasteros suggests, but confronting the monster created by promiscuity and unchecked sexual passion.

As Chuck Colson summarized in his review of Jones’ works,

The avenging monster from the id, as Jones calls it, took new form during the second phase of the Enlightenment — a time when syphilis had contaminated European blood. Tragically, adulterous husbands often infected their innocent wives. DRACULA — a novel about a vampire who infects the blood of innocent girls — symbolizes this deadly plague. Dracula’s author, Bram Stoker, had syphilis himself. 

Indeed, it is commonly believe that Stoker died of syphilis. According to Wikipedia, Stoker’s death certificate “named the cause of death as ‘Locomotor ataxia 6 months’, presumed to be a reference to syphilis.” Not only was syphilis the cause of widespread death in Europe at the time, its symptoms were physically monstrous, producing sores and nodes on its victims.  The final degenerative stages of the disease were marked by severe mental and physical decline. Stoker likely suffered with Neurosyphilis which, among other things, made one averse to light, misshapen, and by even grow fangs. This is why some scholars see “Dracula” not as an allegory of the Church’s sexual repression, but just the opposite — the monstrous effects of promiscuity and sexual license.

Some scholars see “Dracula” not as an allegory of the Church’s sexual repression, but just the opposite — the monstrous effects of promiscuity and sexual license.

For Jones, the evils of horror are the result of suppressing morality or blatantly disavowing it. Controlling desire isn’t evil, recklessly indulging it is. The real monster, according to Jones, is the shame, guilt, and regret it breeds. The Bible teaches that Law of God is written into the heart of every human being. We know that we are sinners, our consciences condemning our own evil actions (Rom. 2:15). Jones posits that horror films are popular not because people are sinners, but because they refuse to admit it. It is a guilty conscience that punishes unrepentant sinners, especially those who’ve violated God’s sexual code. In this sense, the Monster is Remorse, which Jones defines as regret without repentance.

While Purity Culture definitely had its problems, the call to “sexual purity” is a thematic constant in Scripture. The Apostle Paul wrote, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor” (II Thess. 4:3-5). Peter encouraged his readers “to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (I Pet. 2:11). In fact, marriage is specifically commissioned as a remedy to “sexual immorality” in which “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (I Cor. 7:2). In spite of the fact that some describe the Church as having a “particular fascination with [sexual] desire,” it can’t be denied that, biblically speaking, sexual purity and self-control are virtues God desire we aspire to.

Not coincidentally, many who disavow Purity Culture also disavow traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. I still recall debating a professing Christian women who was a vocal critic of Purity Culture. Now, she considers herself a “non-binary queer” who’s written a book on transitioning. Josh Harris, author of the popular book recommended in Purity Circles, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, famously announced that he was divorcing his wife and abandoning Christianity. Furthermore, Harris has announced himself an ally of LGBTQ+ representation. Then there’s individuals like this who announce swinging “from purity culture to hookup culture.”

Is the condemnation of Purity Culture synonymous with the rejection of the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic? No. However, their intersection is ubiquitous.

Forasteros concludes that the vampire “embodies the Church’s fear of desire—desires that are unbound, that spill out of the narrow confines of the pews and want that which is forbidden.” What he fails to address, however, is the casualties of sexual license and the Bible’s clear condemnations against sexual immorality.

Truth is, “sexual desires” can indeed become monstrous. Stoker’s death from syphilis is evidence of that.

Unbridled passion is always monstrous.

As Jones put it, “horror involves both the result [of the Enlightenment’s morality] and the inability to face the moral cause.” The moral monsters we encounter are often produced by our rejection of Christian morality, and our embrace of the Enlightenment’s ethos of personal liberation, especially in sexual matters.

The vampire archetype is far from a reaction against Purity Culture and its equivalent sexual codes. Rather it is a condemnation of sexual promiscuity and the unhitching of desire from its stable. Passion is good… in the proper context. Unbridled passion is always monstrous. The “monster” of Stoker’s story is not the demonizing of desire, but the insatiable mutation of it. Dracula embodies rampant sexual desires, not the repression of them.

Which is why it is the cross and the soldiers of the cross who defeat Dracula.

Demonizing the Church is status quo for social critics. Sadly, that sentiment has seeped into literary criticism. Nevertheless, the monsters of horror, both the genre and in 21st century culture, are byproducts of our rejection of Christianity, not our embrace of it.

What Changes to Abbie Richards’ Popular “Conspiracy Chart” Tell Us about Disinfo/Conspiracy Research

Abbie Richards’ “Conspiracy Chart” became popular in 2020. I featured it in my lengthy piece on conspiracy theories. The chart serves as a barometer, not just of contemporary conspiracy theories, but of the intentions and ideologies of disinfo researchers in general. Richards’ recent update of the chart (see below) is illustrative of the evolving beliefs and political convictions of many conspiracy researchers. Let’s look at a few of these telling changes (and retentions).

Beginning with the sidebar, it’s notable that the upper tier formerly read “World Ruled by Supreme ‘Shadow Elites.’ Once You Believe One You Usually Believe Most. Get Help.” The 2021 chart is changed to read “World Ruled by Supreme Shadow Elite. Promotes Hatred and Violence Towards Marginalized Groups.” (Here’s an Imgur link to a high-res side-by-side comparison of both charts.)

The shift from “Get Help” to “You’re a violent threat to society and marginalized groups” is significant.

Much contemporary research now frames conspiracy beliefs as a violent threat to society.

Indeed, since the FBI identified QAnon as a potential domestic terror threat, much contemporary research now frames conspiracy beliefs as a violent threat to society. Believing in the Illuminati is no longer considered innocuous. In this way, exposing conspiracism and helping others escape its clutches becomes an intrinsic societal good, ennobling those who undertake this grueling effort. (Although, it is still unclear how belief in a Hollow Earth, Flat Earth, Nazis on the Moon, or Reptilian Overlords actually radicalizes believers towards violence.) Also, what is notably missing from such analysis is how Leftist ideologies have repeatedly led to violence (see: Weather Underground, Black Panthers, Antifa, Chaz, BLM riots, the shooting of GOP politicians by Bernie Sanders supporter, environmental terrorism, etc.). As we’ll see, conspiracy theories perpetuated by the Left are strangely absent from this list.

Moving to the upper tier (Tier 5), we notice that “Celebs moisturize with children’s foreskin” was removed from the highest level.” Why? Perhaps because it’s actually a thing? Either way, that removal has made way for significant new inclusions — “Hollywood is Turning Your Kids Gay” and “Trans Agenda.”

While Richards does not elaborate on these conspiracy claims, positioning them in the highest level of conspiracy paranoia is revealing. Especially when significant evidence exists that media is being used to indoctrinate our children. For example, Insider magazine noted “Animation’s queer women, trans, and nonbinary creatives are pushing gender boundaries in kid’s cartoons their counterparts couldn’t — or wouldn’t dare.” Then there was the creepy song released, and then deleted, by the San Francisco Gay men’s Choir declaring “We’re coming for your kids.” Here’s a sample verse and chorus:

You say we all lead lives you don’t respect. But you’re just frightened. You think that we’ll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked. Funny, just this once, you’re correct.

We’ll convert your children – happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly and you will barely notice it…

Furthermore, Abigail Shrier, in her devastating book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, chronicles in detailed testimony how media, YouTube influencers, and academics push a grand pro-gay/trans narrative that is having disastrous effects upon our children. Also, Shrier’s book was actually banned by trans activists!

In his book Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America, Noah Rothman also notes the role pop culture plays in reshaping our children’s sexual identity.

“Popular culture is devoted to destigmatizing behavior in children that is atypical of their sex. We’re no longer talking about inculcating an interest in science and engineering in young girls or allowing boys to experiment with toys and costumes marketed toward girls, though both themes are prevalent in pop culture and advertising. What began as an effort to combat sexism and bigotry has reached the point that rejecting transgenderism even in grade school children is seen by many on the social justice left as narrow-mindedness.”

According to the Conspiracy Chart, Rothman would no doubt be considered “Detached from Reality.”

Being that LGBTQ-alliance and affirmation is so evidently pervasive in media and academia, why is it included in the most dangerous level of conspiracy thinking? The likely explanation is that, because such fears/concerns foment mostly on the Right, portraying Gay/Trans indoctrination as the highest level of dangerous conspiracy thinking conveniently indicts those with real concerns.

Which makes one wonder whether the Conspiracy Chart isn’t more of a tool to indict political opponents than actually trace conspiratorial thinking.

Changes to the next descending tier (Tier 4) are perhaps even more indicative of this political/ideological framing. New additions include:

Antifa did Jan. 6thU.S. Presidential election was stolenIvermectin cures COVIDCOVID is a bio-weapon Plandemic Vaccines have microchips

This tier received the most revision. Whereas the 2020 version included 11 “conspiracies” in Tier 4, the 2021 version has nearly doubled that, offering 21. “Anti-vaxxers,” which appeared in the first version, has given way to a broader range of pandemic-related issues — believing Ivermectin cures COVID, that the virus is a bioweapon, and Plandemic (the belief that COVID was intentionally released to initiate the Great Reset). In other words, anti-vaxxers, or those skeptical of the vaccine and the government’s handling of the pandemic, remain centrally targeted by the new Conspiracy Chart. Apparently, unless one receives the vaccine, encourages others to do so, and complies with State and Federal mandates regarding COVID protocols, they are framed as being “Dangerous to [themselves] and others” and nearing the dreaded conspiratorial point of no return.

Such conclusions are important in that the data regarding the origins and treatment of COVID still remain in flux. Evidence that the NIH funded gain-of-function research continues to emerge, casting questions upon the “experts” who have been debunking the “COVID-19 made in lab” charge. Newly released emails make more plausible the contention that Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins presided over the suppression of the lab-leak theory for political reasons. As Megan Basham recently wrote,

“…it doesn’t take any great level of spiritual discernment — just plain common sense — to look at the fact that Covid first emerged in a city with a virology institute that specializes in novel coronaviruses and realize it wasn’t an explanation that should be set aside too easily.”

2020 Conspiracy Chart. Removed from 2021 version

Nevertheless, great effort has gone into denying the plausibility that the pandemic was the result of a lab leak. But why? Interestingly, the 2020 conspiracy chart included “COVID-19 made in a lab” in this 4th tier (see image). However, this “conspiracy” was removed from the 2021 version and replaced by the “COVID is a bio-weapon. ” Could this be an admission that the belief that COVID-19 was made in a lab was actually not as conspiratorial as initially projected? Furthermore, if there are legitimate questions as to the Chinese government’s transparency regarding the virus’ origins, how can anyone say with confidence that it was NOT designed as a bio-weapon?

But such confident pronunciations are indeed a feature of similar conspiracy research. Take the “Ivermectin cures COVID” claim. This belief is filed alongside “Biden is a robot” and “RFID tracking devices in bras.” But is the belief that Ivermectin is an effective treatment of COVID as deranged as the belief that President Biden is a robot? Apparently, some conspiracy researchers want you to believe so. Despite the fact that a large, peer-reviewed research study recently proved that ivermectin works, disinfo researchers appear determined to portray such beliefs — and its believers! — as delusionally lunatic hogwash that leads to violence.

Much more can be said about the new conspiracy chart and what it reveals about contemporary conspiracy research. Bottom line, Zuby was correct to observe that “Putting ‘trans agenda,’ ‘flat earth,’ ‘George Soros,’ ‘Holocaust Denial,’ etc. all in the same category is insane.”

Insane, but also intentional. Not only does Richards’ conspiracy chart conveniently ignore leftwing conspiracies, it groups conservative and rightwing-leaning beliefs with comically over-the-top crockery. Does anyone really think that concerns about “Cultural Marxism” are equivalent to believing in “Reptilian Overlords”? Apparently, today’s conspiracy researchers hope you do.

Contemporary conspiracy research is a testament to “partisan asymmetry,” designed to “make the right look chock full of cranks and the left look sensible and savvy.“

In his book “Conspiracy Theories: A Primer” Joseph Uscinski, associate professor of political science at the University of Miami, notes that when he began studying the subject he and his research partner noted that their colleagues had focused mainly on conspiracy theories believed by Republicans but ignored those on the Left.

They discovered a claim of “partisan asymmetry” — the belief that the Right believes way more conspiracy theories than does the Left — based on the pretense that “the right is more authoritarian, anti-intellectual and tribal.” They noted “the notion of asymmetry has persisted because academics and journalists align largely with the Left.”

This causes these institutions and researchers to “disproportionately dwell on conspiracy theories held by the right but overlook conspiracy theories closer to home… The cumulative effect is that our knowledge generating and knowledge disseminating institutions make the right look chock full of cranks and the left look sensible and savvy.” pgs. 92-93

Contemporary conspiracy research is a testament to “partisan asymmetry,” designed to “make the right look chock full of cranks and the left look sensible and savvy.” Abbie Richards’ “conspiracy chart” is Exhibit A.

Film Version of “Redeeming Love” Rekindles the Old Debate about “Edgy” vs. “Clean” Christian Stories.

I used to be part of a writers group called “Edgy Christian Fiction.” At the time (early 2010’s), Christian fiction writers often debated pushing the content envelop of the stories we told. Whereas most Christian fiction was synonymous with “clean” and “family friendly” fare, some artists and authors aspired to address more mature thematic elements and write novels that did not skirt real-life messiness or adhere to a strict checklist of banned content items.

Anyway, I ended up leaving the group because what they considered “edgy,” really wasn’t.

I came away from my “edgy Christian fiction” phase with the realization that everyone has a different threshold for what they consider edgy. Because of that, giving room for Christian artists to create potentially controversial fare and/or support works I might deem inappropriate seemed a reasonable concession.

Whether that will be one of the insights Christian consumers take away from the growing controversy surrounding the release of the new Redeeming Love: The Movie remains to be seen.

I read and reviewed the book almost a decade ago as part of a research phase into the Christian Romance genre. Author Francine Rivers’ book was controversial back then. In large part, however, it was due to the subject matter. The story takes place mostly in a brothel, with the lead character, Angel, being a prostitute and a victim of extensive abuse. Rivers has been clear about the parabolic intent of the story as she sought to portray God’s relentless love for a terribly fallen and twisted humanity. However, some critics went so far as to claim the book was a gateway to softcore pornography.

For nearly 30 years, fans of the book have anticipated a film version. To her credit, Rivers has patiently waited for what she believed was the right time and confluence of talents. Her local paper describes the journey from print to screen.

Over the years, [the book] was optioned for film several times, but Rivers invariably exercised her contractual right of refusal after reviewing the scripts. It was only when Cindy Bond, CEO of Mission Pictures International, a respected name in the faith/family film genre (including the 2018 movie “I Can Only Imagine”) optioned the rights to “Redeeming Love” that Rivers was seriously intrigued. Rivers bought a book on screenwriting and drafted a sample treatment of the story for Bond to review. To her surprise, Mission Pictures bought the script, giving her control over characters she created and fiercely protects.

The fact that Rivers retained so much creative control and “collaborated closely with director D.J. Caruso to polish her first attempt at script writing into a screenplay that is both faithful to the book and friendly to the much different art of cinematic storytelling” is a significant element, I believe, of the ensuing pushback.

Of course, it is unsurprising that the initial reactions to the film have split along secular / spiritual lines (or maybe it’s Non-Fans / Fans). At this writing, there is a gaping 80+ Dislike to Like disparity at Rotten Tomatoes. Some will see it as conspiratorial hogwash to insinuate that secular critics possess an inherent disdain for Christian films. However, the gushing five-star reviews from fans of the book are equally as problematic.

One notable thematic consistent from many of the secular review sites is the application of #metoo aesthetics to the film. For example, the reviewer at Flickering Myths suggest that “the camera work takes on a male gaze lens.” The AV Club portrays the film as “two and a half hours of horny holiness” and describes the story as “icky” because it “hinges on a fundamental power imbalance.” The review at Slant says the film “Mansplains Redemption and Spirituality.” Another reviewer notes that the film portrays “an unhealthy picture of love.”

In light of the #MeToo movement and allegations of abuse in the church, the importance of consent and respect cannot be over emphasized, not only in sexual relationships but also emotional and spiritual ones.

Michael [the male protag] rarely gives Angel [the female lead] agency, the privilege to choose and act for oneself. While he doesn’t rape her, Michael violates Angel’s agency in many other physical, emotional and social ways.

Where unequal power exists, consent does not.

This theme of patriarchal power imbalance is a central plank of many of the critiques of the film. (Interestingly, and not coincidentally, it finds parallel in a recent debate among evangelicals about whether King David was a rapist.)

It is the “edgy” elements of the film that are the most divisive among faith-based audiences.

Some of the critics acknowledge the film’s technical strengths. For example: “Redeeming Love has none of the sub-professional production values or hysterical culture-war dog-whistling of a Pure Flick.” Others commend the lead actors for bringing believability to their characters.

However, it is the “edgy” elements of the film that are the most divisive among faith-based audiences.

For example, some Christian reviewers are charging the film as being “erotica,” even calling it “5o Shades of Grey for Christian women.”

Another Christian viewer frowned on the “scenes of makeout and sensuous content.”

The Christian review site MovieGuide describes the film as “Lackluster and Unnecessarily Graphic,” suggesting that the film “could have been edited to have the audience understand the issues rather than showing them.” It details some of the film’s alleged infractions:

Sex: Depicted sex scene shown, implied fornication, multiple sex scenes shown, child prostitution, noises from a child being abused, it’s implied man sexually abuses his own child, and oral sex is implied with a brother-in-law

Nudity: Upper female nudity though hair covering, man covers woman’s breast with his hand, upper male nudity

Other Christian reviewers are expressing similar shock. For example, Sharon Wilharm writes:

Redeeming Love is a gritty story. The filmmakers wanted to make it realistic, and they did a fabulous job creating a wicked and vile environment. They captured raunchy no problems. Then they took it a step further. They included nudity.

The Christian actors I know have no nudity clauses in their contracts. Many have left Hollywood because they refused to remove their clothes for a film role. And yet, here we have a “Christian movie” that required nudity from the lead actors. We’re not talking a quick glimpse of a bare back. We’re talking full on frontal with just cascading hair and a carefully placed set piece.

The sad thing is that it wasn’t necessary in any way. Most of the movie is handled discreetly, and it works. We get the idea. But the scene where she stands in front of him completely naked was totally unnecessary. She could have been wearing her usual attire and it would have worked just as well.

Likewise, the Plugged In review (Focus on the Family review site) is clear about sexual content being the great sin of the film.

We weren’t surprised that a movie about a man redeeming a prostitute would have some sexual content to navigate, but we were baffled by how explicit the content was.

Angel and Michael have sex twice. Both lengthy scenes (nearly four minutes of combined screentime) involve explicit movements, ecstatic facial expressions and sounds that definitely strain at the boundaries of what’s allowable in a PG-13 movie. Nudity is strategically avoided in one of those scenes, but both scenes have erotically charged feel to them. These scenes aren’t brief and suggestive, but lengthy and very sensual.

Angel is naked on at least three occasions, though nothing is fully revealed due to clever camerawork. However, on multiple occasions, her breasts are only covered by her hair or, in one instance, Michael’s hands. Angel straddles Michael while talking with him. Angel scrubs herself to the point of bleeding while naked in a river, trying to cleanse herself of her shame, and the side of her breast is partially visible.

The author concludes with a measured critique of the film:

We don’t want to knock Redeeming Love for its realistic approach. But we question how necessary it was to the plot to show the audience two long and intimate sex scenes, as well as several other scenes that include partial or near nudity. The average viewer certainly could’ve figured out what was going on without the need for such detailed sexual depictions.

Redeeming Love captures the beautiful story of what unconditional love truly looks like, especially when our sins may be too difficult for us to bear. Unfortunately, this poignant portrait of unconditional love also strays repeatedly into such provocative images that it might cause some who wrestle with pornography or sexual sin to stumble themselves.

Acknowledging the redemptive message of the film while condemning its perceived erotic content is the tightrope many faith-based reviewers are being forced to walk. For example. the Crosswalk review describes 4 Things to Know about Redeeming Love, the Movie Based on Francine Rivers’ Popular Novel:

It’s Based on a Best-Seller … and Inspired by ScriptureIt’s Allegorical … and PowerfulIt’s ExcellentIt Pushes the Envelope

The author concludes,

Let’s state the obvious: Due to the subject matter, it was never going to be possible to turn Francine River’s novel into a family-friendly movie. With that out of the way, the question becomes: How do you tell the story without going too far?

Thankfully, the film contains no full nudity. It’s rated PG-13 for “mature thematic content, sexual content, partial nudity, and strong violent content.”

Largely, the sexual content is off-screen and implied.

Still, it can be titillating. 

He concludes, “Redeeming Love isn’t for kids. But for moviegoers who aren’t troubled by its rough content, it’s powerful.”

But the idea that there can be “moviegoers who aren’t troubled by [Redeeming Love’s] rough content” is a concession that some appear unwilling to make.

And here’s where we circle back to the subject of “edgy Christian content.” What do we do when we encounter a work of art with a redemptive message but more questionable elements?

In parsing that question, I’ve always believed it was important to discern the author’s intent. And in the case of Francine Rivers, we don’t need to guess. In her interview with Christianity Today, Rivers was asked about how the film intersects with Christian discussions about sex.

We tend not to talk about sex, but the Song of Solomon is in the Bible. That was what I wanted reflected in this. It’s a gift from God when it’s in the right frame, within a marriage. And unfortunately, in our culture, it’s like anything goes. We’re seeing so many different things on TV that are explicit, shockingly so. I think there is a place for a tastefully done love scene to try to show the difference between what the world says love is and what God says it is.

Furthermore, Rivers directly defended the more controversial elements of the movie saying,

We’re not trying to titillate people. There’s a point to the scenes and a reason for them to be in there. And it’s such a gritty story.

Will the author’s admissions that the erotic elements of the film were not meant to “titillate” viewers stave off critics? It’s highly unlikely.

In the realm of evangelical art, authorial intent is irrelevant.

This tension between “clean” stories and “edgy” stories has long existed among evangelical consumers. Can a “Christian” story contain language, nudity, or gore and still be “Christian”? Is cinematic nudity and/or simulated / implied sex allowable? Redeeming Love: The Movie rekindles a controversy that’s plagued evangelicalism for decades. Sadly, it’s also serving as a wedge to divide believers.

To defend a more libertine approach to film in evangelical circles is often seen as moral negligence.

I appreciate Christian author Lisa Bergren’s perspective. She saw the film with her adults daughters and summarized it this way on a Facebook post:

“I fully support this film. But tread carefully if bringing a child under 18. Or someone who has experienced abuse in the past. But also…do use it as an opportunity to talk about how sex can be beautiful or, so, so, twisted. And also…regardless of how life unfolded, a person’s future can be redeemed. Incredible film-making and opportunity to talk about meaningful issues!”

Of course, many will reject such an approach, favoring rather to label the film trashy erotica and those who support it as compromised. Alas, to defend a more libertine approach to film in evangelical circles is often seen as moral negligence.

If anything, Redeeming Love: The Movie is evidence that the debate between “clean” vs. “edgy” content is alive and well in evangelical culture. So while some viewers will appeal to personal conscience and discernment, acknowledging the film’s redemptive message, others will simply dismiss the work as “erotica.”

Does the Bible Teach that Suicide is an ‘Unforgiveable Sin’?

This week we learned that a close family friend killed himself.

Sadly, this is not a new experience for myself and my family. We’ve had two very close friends previously commit suicide. While the emotional terrain along this road is familiar, the pain is always uniquely its own.

The psychological effects to those left in the wake of suicide can be overwhelming. We ask, Could this have been prevented? Were there signs I missed? How could the victim have been so selfish? The questions are never-ending and can leave survivors emotionally exhausted, if not in abysmal despair.

But one effect of suicide that I’ve repeatedly encountered is the theological implications created by the act.

Perhaps this is a result of my own tendency to over-think things, to fit events — even the most perplexing and painful — into a rational framework. In my world, understanding provides a scaffold for my emotions. My heart finds healing via my head. Logically grasping certain things helps me resolve much emotional pain.

But in the case of suicide, understanding and logic is often in short supply.

For example, all three of the individuals I reference here were professing Christians. They’d been baptized, attended church, and pledged to follow Jesus. No, they were not all spiritually flourishing. It is more exact to say that they were all struggling. Yet none had bailed on the early profession of faith (as far as I am aware). In fact, attempting to jibe their faith with their emotional state was part of their emotional plight. Nevertheless, from a theological perspective, it is not inappropriate to question a suicide victim’s relationship or standing with God.

In fact, of the seven references to suicide in Scripture, only one individual is portrayed in a favorable light. Those references are:

Abimelech (Judges 9:54)Samson (Judges 16:29-31)Saul and His Armor Bearer (1 Samuel 31:3-6)Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23)Zimri (1 Kings 16:18)Judas (Matthew 27:5)

Of these seven, only Samson appears to have been in some “healthy” spiritual proximity to God. Even though Samson’s life was not a model of Christian living, he was still honored among the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11. This is really quite astounding. Of course, some speculate whether Samson’s final act was an act of suicide or some sort of martyrdom. In either case, it’s clear from Scripture that Samson was not cast off by God for his “suicidal” actions.

The same cannot be said of the other biblical characters in this list.

Likewise, when a professing Christian takes their own life, we are typically confronted with many difficult questions. Where was God in this? Why didn’t God stop His child? Was this individual even in a relationship with God? Or had the devil filled a spiritual vacuum? And what about mental illness? Does mental illness circumvent prayer or God’s ability to act? Is the mentally ill Christian still responsible for their suicidal behavior?* But all these musings eventually distill into one single, thorny question — Where does the victim of suicide go when they die?

Until I was personally affected by suicide, this was not a question I was prepared to answer.

Gary shot himself New Years Day 1991. He’d been a beloved member of the first church I’d pastored. A humble, fragile guy with a history of depression and chronic low self-esteem. He was on medication for schizophrenia and, when the church discovered he was expressing suicidal thoughts, took all the appropriate steps to help him. However, he outfoxed us all.

I officiated Gary’s funeral. One of the questions I was forced to publicly address was whether or not suicide was an unforgivable sin. This wasn’t a question I had anticipated, but arose from some well-meaning family members. They were Catholic and somewhere along the way had been taught, or came to believe, that the suicide victim’s soul was not salvageable. Gary’s own mother believed this and was so shamed by the act that she refused to attend his funeral. Forget about God — she could not forgive him. Anyway, it was rather awkward publicly speaking to the subject at the funeral, but it seemed necessary.

After learning about the tragic suicide of our friend last week, it caused me to reflect again on that painful season.  Suicides are like that. When you’re immediately affected by one, it leaves a wound that never goes away. Which is why reminding myself of what Scripture really says — or doesn’t say — about suicide is important.

Augustine was one of the first theologians to declare a distinction between martyrdom and suicide. The act of murdering oneself, he said, was a decision in direct opposition to God’s will. Along with adultery and apostasy, suicide came to be seen as unredeemable. Later, Thomas Aquinas classified suicide as a mortal sin that could not be forgiven. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church refused to conduct funerals for people who killed themselves, even burying those bodies outside the graveyard. The Catholic Church has since modified its view, permitting suicide victims to have a Catholic funeral. Nevertheless, the stigma and the condemnation of these views still echo through history.

As a result of Gary’s suicide, I searched the Scriptures for some answers. Interestingly enough, I learned the Bible nowhere directly condemns suicide. People are often surprised by this. Of the seven accounts of suicide in Scripture, the most notorious being those of King Saul (1 Samuel 31:2-5) and Judas (Matthew 27:3-5, neither one is explicitly condemned for taking his life. This in no way justifies their actions, for the Bible nowhere condones suicide. In fact, the trajectory of both these individuals was on an arc away from God.

“Thou shalt not kill” must also mean “Thou shalt not kill… THYSELF!”

But that’s not always true of suicide victims. Like our friend Joey.

Joey was raised in our church. When he was young he had an accident and fell from a large oak tree, crushing his skull. Part of his brain was removed and Joey’s life hung in the balance. Yet God spared him. Of course, Joey was never the same. After the accident, he walked with a limp. His head was bit crooked and he was mentally slower. But you couldn’t find a kid more on fire for God. He was always eager to go to Bible study or church. And he was determined to share his faith, believing that God allowed the accident as part of his testimony. In fact, he raised money to go on a mission trip to Fiji. Joey loved the Lord. However, he was also a very sensitive soul. It was that emotional frailty that eventually contributed to Joey tragically taking his own life.

Unlike a Saul or Judas, Joey was not on a trajectory away from God. So did suicide permanently strip him of his heavenly rewards?

True, Jesus spoke of an “unforgivable sin” in Matt. 12:22-32. However, the context is one in which the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of the devil. There’s varying opinions about what the unforgivable sin or “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” might be. However, Scripture does not describe suicide as the unforgivable sin.

So because there’s no explicit teaching on suicide, we must form an opinion based on inference and more clearly articulated theology.

In the simplest sense, suicide comes under the prohibition against murder.

The person who commits suicide is guilty of murder. Then ask, is murder an unpardonable sin? The answer, from Scripture, is an emphatic “no!” Some of the greatest figures in biblical history were murderers — Moses, King David, Saul (who later became the Apostle Paul). However, the problem suicide renders is its finality. In other words, murderers who have a chance to repent can be forgiven. But suicide prevents an individual from repenting. So does this mean, as some have taught, that suicide causes one to be permanently frozen in an unrepentant state?

This leads to the bigger, and perhaps most important, part of the discussion on suicide. What does it mean to be saved? In the simplest sense, salvation is not based upon what you do, but on what Christ has done. Trusting in Christ’s atonement changes your essential nature and eternal state. Of course, this doesn’t mean that a Christian will never sin, which includes having suicidal thoughts. It means that even though they sin, their destiny has been forever altered. A child of God does not stop being a child of God because they sin. This would include the sin of suicide.

So if you’re a Christian and suddenly die before you have a chance to repent of ANY sin — adultery, pride, greed, lust, selfishness, whatever — do you still go to heaven? How could you not? If unrepentant sin keeps us from going to heaven, then none of us would ever get there! Furthermore, it would make salvation contingent upon what we do, not on what Christ has done.

A child of God does not stop being a child of God because they sin. This would include the sin of suicide.

As the Apostle Paul proclaimed:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. — Romans 8:38-39 NIV

It is not a stretch to assume that “anything else in all creation” includes the act of suicide. God’s love and power are so great that not even the terrible, violent, thoughtless act of suicide can keep someone from Him. Thus, the most important issue facing the soul contemplating suicide — as it is with all of us — is their relationship with God. 

Yes, we Christians must improve in how we deal with the mentally ill. Quoting Scriptures or challenging someone to believe isn’t a magic formula. Joy and peace are often byproducts of spiritual warfare, hard-fought spoils won only through perseverance and prayer. But sometimes even prayer and perseverance aren’t enough. There is a good reason why Jesus included a physician in among the 12 apostles. Luke, author of the third Gospel, was called “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14). Apparently, even though Jesus was a miracle worker, medical practitioners remained part of His mission. Of course, trusting ONLY physicians could reveal a lack of faith. On the other hand, completely ignoring medical science could also be presumption.

As the apostle Paul summarized, we should “Carry each other’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2), the stronger upholding the weak. This is especially true for those suffering from the effects of mental illness. Rather than frowning upon or demeaning those professing Christians who worry, are anxious, or struggle with their faith, we who are “stronger” should come alongside to encourage and assist. It may not resolve their relationship with God, but it could buoy them forward for another day of battle.

I miss Joey. He was a regular at our house. The last conversation I had with him was about helping him write a book containing his testimony. He so wanted to lead others to Christ. And then there’s Gary. I baptized him in a swimming pool. We often played basketball. Likewise, I shared many meals with him. He publicly professed faith in Christ and strove to follow Him. Of course, Gary never thought he was a good Christian.

But I have little doubt that he and Joey were Christians.

Nothing could change their inclusion in God’s family, not even their sinful acts of suicide.

*To understand more about mental illness in the church, see my interview with Chris Morris as well as his book Whispers in the Pews: Voices on Mental Illness in the Church.

How to Survive a “Reality Crisis”

The Survival Prepper movement has gone from fringe to mainstream thanks, in no small part, to the COVID-19 virus. Before the pandemic, most responsible citizens aspired to be disaster-prepared. The problem was, we just never followed through. That is until a (plausibly) leaked lab virus created a global panic, leading to death, governmental over-reaction, mass quarantine, supply chain collapses, economic crashes, and urban riots. Well, that was the wake-up call for prepper procrastinators and vaulted a niche industry into a mainstream necessity.

But apparently another, lesser known crisis is now upon us — a reality crisis.

A February 2021 New York Times article boldly suggested it may be time for the United States government to create something called a “reality czar.” Why? And what in the world is a reality czar? According to the author, Kevin Roose, technology writer, this government administrator could help “solve our reality crisis” by tackling “disinformation and domestic extremism” and censoring its dissemination. The “czar,” and his or her department, could “become the tip of the spear for the federal government’s response to the reality crisis.”

The dictionary definition of reality is, “The state or quality of being real; something that actually exists or happens; a real event, entity, or state of affairs; the totality of real things and events.”

However, the type of “reality” that Roose cites as being in “crisis” clearly has nothing to do with a state of actual existence or a quality of being — it has to do with “disinformation.” He writes:

Thirty percent of Republicans have a favorable view of QAnon, according to a recent YouGov poll. According to other polls, more than 70 percent of Republicans believe Mr. Trump legitimately won the election, and 40 percent of Americans… believe the baseless theory that Covid-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab.

These opinions are alleged examples of “misguided beliefs…[h]oaxes, lies and collective delusions.” They find their source in a “muddled, chaotic information ecosystem” (which one could only assume does NOT include the “paper of record”). However, it is the conclusion suggested by the author that is so startling — the government should actively censor sources that are viewed as unreliable or misleading. Or as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) warned, “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.”

Several questions immediately arise when such correctives are floated. For one, who arbitrates between what is true and what is false reportage? Both Ocasio-Cortez and the New York Times embrace clear ideological biases. Are these biases inconsequential to what one deems as “misleading”? And what happens when the wheel of the narrative is taken by their political opponents? Also, there’s the problem of “shrinking the public square” in order to stifle debate.

I don’t need the government to ban The Weekly World News to know it’s twaddle… Banning info sources, even suspect ones, always backfires.

Matt Welch at Reason magazine responds:

Journalists and media-theoreticians right now think the solution to Trumpy delusion is to deplatform even sitting U.S. senators, sic the feds on Fox News, break up Big Tech, reject “bothsidesism,” use the most maximally negative adjectives to describe Republicans, and reposition journalism as a tool for producing better democratic outcomes through applied moral clarity.

I think those approaches will backfire. Deliberately shrinking the public square is no way to persuade consumers on the edges of the debate. Injecting more moralizing into fact-gathering is unlikely to make the end product more factual. Giving the government more power over the rules and practice of free speech is, well, dystopian.

My recommendation to journalists and their cousins in government and academia will be neither popular nor satisfying, but here it is: Do your own jobs better. That’s it, that’s the memo. If government was efficient and helpful, if journalism was compelling and truthful, if the academe was relevant and unpredictable, their lectures would have far more resonance, and audience.

Censorship inevitably backfires… even when the material being censored deserves a limited audience. I don’t need the government to ban The Weekly World News to know it’s twaddle. But the moment that some official tells me I can no longer peruse the pages of that rag — or ANY network or newsource — is when I suddenly become more interested. It’s the “forbidding” that makes the fruit so enticing. So what if Hillary’s Space Alien Baby is fake news! Knowing that every mouse click undercuts Big Brother is added incentive.

Banning info sources, even suspect ones, always backfires. Not only does it denigrate the citizens’ IQ, but it inevitably platforms via de-platforming. (Case in point: Joe Rogan has emerged as one of the most influential news/entertainment personalities, mainly for airing controversial interviews. After his interview with Dr. Robert Malone about COVID science was banned from YouTube, Rogan’s show was catapulted into the highest rated news source.) Science that is forbidden to be interrogated deserves to be suspect. In the same way, when legacy media, Big Tech, and Big Pharma are all anxious to silence certain voices, it only creates more ears.

Of course, the “information” cited in Roose’s NYT article is significantly more relevant — and debateable — than Hillary’s cuddly baby martian. For example, the belief that COVID-19 escaped from a lab was once considered a full-blown conspiracy theory. Now, it is considered a leading possibility. Likewise, Republicans’ belief in some level of voter fraud in the 2020 election, though now labeled “the big lie,” still contains some compelling evidence. In fact, The Washington Times recently reported that in late 2017 the overwhelming majority of Democrats believed that Trump “was not legitimately elected president.” In other words, Republican’s’ views on voter fraud are “not novel.”

It doesn’t take much to concede the belief that misinformation and “collective delusions” litter our “information ecosystem.” But is the answer to create an administrative body to fact check news sources? Is the answer to appoint a “reality czar”?

Trust in government and media were already tenuous before the pandemic. It’s led some to ask, Will public trust in science survive the pandemic? and Can experts win back the public’s trust? Has COVID really marked the twilight of the expert class? Others suggest that the CDC has lost all credibility. Still others conclude, “Levels of trust in this country—in our institutions, in our politics, and in one another—are in precipitous decline.”

Perhaps society is not experiencing a “reality crisis,” but a “crisis of trust.”

Furthermore, conflating public distrust of institutions, government, and media, with some type of break from reality is gaslighting of the highest order. Pronouncing those who disbelieve in your approved data as being ‘psychotic’ is hardly a way to endear their allegiance.

In his book “Conspiracy Theories: A Primer,” Joe Uscinski suggests that “citizens should believe accounts from properly constituted epistemic authorities.” But who are these “properly constituted epistemic authorities”? The truth is that once -trusted authorities and professions are bleeding credibility. Whereas the American media used to rank relatively high in its trustworthiness, the U.S. news industry now ranks at the bottom of the global index. Hard journalism has given way to partisan reportage, spin, and adherence to institutional orthodoxy.

As a result, the field of epistemic authorities has shrunk. As Uscinski puts it in this essay,

The collective production of reliable knowledge is by no means the sole preserve of accredited institutions of epistemic authority.

For example, he cites citizens groups of independent researchers who have “engaged in rigorous and competent investigation” of larger institutions. The findings of some of these groups have “been endorsed by scientists” and other relevant authorities. As a result, some credible independent research casts doubt upon the veracity of previously-vetted authorities.

…even institutions with seemingly unimpeachable claims to epistemic authority do not necessarily stand above and immune from political contestations over knowledge and truth claims. For this reason, skepticism about them cannot always or necessarily be condemned as irrational. 

Knee-jerk charges of “conspiracy theory!” followed by blacklisting is hardly the way to recover one’s deflated bona fides.

In this sense, the New York Times does not “stand above” the “muddled, chaotic information ecosystem” it condemns. In fact, reclaiming a position of “epistemic authority” demands transparency and independent investigation. No one paper or person can be above scrutiny. The Gray Lady must herself be subject to interrogation before she can lecture the field on journalistic integrity.

“…even institutions with seemingly unimpeachable claims to epistemic authority do not necessarily stand above and immune from political contestations over knowledge and truth claims. For this reason, skepticism about them cannot always or necessarily be condemned as irrational.”

In this sense, appointing a “reality czar” is the worst possible response to a “reality crisis.” Unless such an individual or institution was absolutely free of ideological bias, political motivation, or self-interests, glossing them as an “epistemic authority” only perpetuates the “muddled, chaotic information ecosystem” one seeks to maneuver. Rather, there must be an admission like the one made by Joseph Bernstein in his Harper’s Magazine expose on disinformation that “However well-intentioned these professional [disinformation researchers] are, they don’t have special access to the fabric of reality.” Similarly, no “reality czar” would be above the social conditions that he/she queries. And in a world where a transgender swimmer in the Ivy League is smashing women’s records after competing as a man for three years, where 2+2=5, and the president of Planned Parenthood was terminated for not ‘admitting’ that men can become pregnant, one wonders exactly what “reality” a “reality czar” would arbitrate.

The Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder released a report containing 15 recommendations for addressing the “mis and disinformation crisis” in the United States. The commission attempted to embrace what it called a “non-partisan and non-ideological approach.”  While the report acknowledged that “in a free society there are no ‘arbiters of truth,’” the study does little more than reflect the ideological biases of its authors. They ultimately recommend empowering “authorized researchers” and “experts” to review media behavior, without ever calling for bi-partisan configurations of our information ecosystem.

As our trust in media, academics, and experts continues to wane, the locus of “authority” actually drifts further away from our institutions and the elite class. Epistemic authority only ever lies in one place — within ourselves.

We are each, for better or worse, “reality czars.”

If our society is experiencing a “crisis of trust” rather than a “reality crisis,” the way back is not to empower selected authorities to squelch what they consider “misinformation.” Rather, it is to train the next generation with critical thinking skills and to exercise our own. Shrinking the public square might render the appearance of minimizing misinformation, but it inevitably only sends the debate into other, sometimes more volatile, corners. The quickest way to ensure the perpetuation of “misguided beliefs…[h]oaxes, lies and collective delusions” is to defer arbitration to someone other than ourselves.

Interview with Jason Wisdom of ‘Death Therapy’

Back in early 2015, I interviewed Jason Wisdom. We’d connected rather randomly on Facebook. Having a musical background and an interest in apologetics, Jason posted a lot on the intersections of Christian music and faith. We seemed to share an interest in the role of the Christian artist in proximity to the local church. Well, since that interview, Jason has plunged even deeper into the industry, formed another band, started additional music projects, and even managed to write a couple of books. So I felt it would be a great time to catch up with Jason.

***

MIKE: When we last spoke, you were in between bands. You’d just come on staff with RYFO, which is a para-church ministry to Christian musicians. As a former pastor, the connections between Christian musicians and local churches have always appeared tenuous to me. Which is why your involvement there was of interest. So how is RYFO going and are you still involved? Any significant takeaways from your involvement there?

JASON: I love RYFO and everything they do for musicians on the road. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to remain with the ministry for long. I come from the Bible belt–Southern Baptist land– where missionaries asking for money is frowned upon almost as much as panhandling on the street corner. But it was through my struggles to raise funding that I started Death Therapy. In 2015, I started writing songs by myself as a way (I hoped) to offer people an incentive to sponsor my ministry. The song ideas quickly developed into a full blown musical idea, and then by 2016, Death Therapy was touring and I was in the studio recording the debut album.

MIKE: Your involvement there sounds providential. At the time of our previous discussion, one of the co-founders of the Newsboys had announced that he was professing atheism. Since then, there’s been some significant big-name defections from the Christian music scene. Michael Gungor, Audrey Assad, Kevin Max, David Bazan, Jon Steingard (of Hawk Nelson), just to name a few. This trend of Christian artists “de-converting” and “de-constructing” their faith appears to be growing. What do you make of this? Has something changed within the industry or culture to up the level of attacks on Christian artists? Is there some common thread you see that can help us understand these defections?

JASON: I don’t think it is necessarily happening more in the artist community than in the general population, but it feels that way sometimes because of the increased influence and visibility artists have. Furthermore, I don’t think it is a new phenomenon. What has changed is the way such “de-conversions” or “de-constructions” are viewed in the social marketplace. Twenty years ago it was not “good for business” to voice opinions that cut against faith/family/tradition etc. I think there were just as many artists deconverting and deconstructing, but they just kept it private for fear of ruining their career. I could offer many anecdotes to back this up from my personal experience in the “Christian music scene” since 1999. Fast forward to 2021, and it is no longer a liability, but a great benefit for artists to voice their disdain for traditional Christian beliefs/values/traditions etc. I always tell people, I don’t have any issue with someone who is genuinely deconstructing or wrestling with issues. I don’t think Christianity is supposed to be based on blind faith. I am also convinced that the foundation of Christianity is strong enough to withstand doubts. What grinds my gears is when I see people who I know abandoned their faith long ago–often for very superficial reasons–suddenly jumping on the deconstruction bandwagon to reap the social benefit.

MIKE: So in 2017, you started Death Therapy. Obviously, having been the front man for Becoming the Archetype, you knew what you were getting yourself into. It’s fairly common for creatives to go in with idealistic expectations only to have their dreams crushed by the realities of marketing, industry expectations, building a fan base, etc. So what prompted you to start another band? Did you approach the formation of this band differently than your previous band? Do you think you had more realistic expectations this time going in?

JASON: When I left BtA in 2011, it was because my wife was pregnant with our first child, and I had to find some sort of gainful employment (or at least try). Death Therapy was designed intentionally to be something for which I could make my own schedule. You’re definitely correct when you say the reality of the industry can be crushing. The upside of starting from scratch is that the trajectory is always upwards–slow, painful, frustrating, but always upwards because the starting point is absolutely zero. Over the last 6 years now, I have expanded my creative output to 3 musical projects (Death Therapy, The Reversalist, Wisdom and Wages) and also written 2 small books (a devotional and a children’s book). 

“Death Therapy songs deal with very difficult and dark topics at times, but always with a resolve to listen carefully for the voice of Christ.”

MIKE: Your new album, Melancholy Machines, marks a bit of a change from the previous two albums (as well as being your first album with Tooth and Nail). While the first two albums were marketed as metalcore, the new one is more alternative. Was this switch for you intentional or more of a natural evolution?

JASON: It was just a natural fit for me at this phase in my life. To be honest, the metalcore edge of the first two albums was more out of insecurity (fear of trying something different) than anything else. With Melancholy Machines, I let go of those inhibitions and just followed the ideas where they wanted to go. I think the result is a sound that really captures the heart of what I always wanted Death Therapy to be–bass guitar driven, dark, contemplative, heavy at times, but also having moments of soft, moody, almost classic goth elements woven in.

MIKE: Many Christian musicians describe their bands as cultural “missionaries” of a sort. Do you see “Death Therapy” in that light? If so, how would you describe the “mission” or “ministry” of Death Therapy? Do you consider your music as having a thematic core, a “message” for lack of better words, and what would that be?

JASON: When I started writing songs for the project that became Death Therapy, I had no intention for it to be widely distributed. So I always saw the project more as a personal artistic outlet than anything else. It was a place for me to do a bit of my own deconstruction–wrestling with doubts, depression, and demons of my own. The twist, I suppose, is that I have never gone so far as to completely untether these themes from the truth and ultimate hope of Scripture. So Death Therapy songs deal with very difficult and dark topics at times, but always with a resolve to listen carefully for the voice of Christ. In that way, Death Therapy has naturally become an outreach to a lot of people going through similar struggles.

MIKE: I recently attempted to start a ministry for “Christian creatives” in our church. It’s a mega-church and has a lot of artists and professional creatives. However, my project was turned down after the leadership learned I write horror novels and create some creepy, gothic art. They are of the school that believes that symbols like skulls or devils are inherently evil. Rather, “Christian art” should be “positive” and biblically explicit. As a hardcore musician, my guess is that you receive similar critiques from well-meaning believers. So how do you typically respond to such critiques? And do you similarly see the church having a difficult time connecting with “Christian creatives” of, say, “darker” sensibilities?

JASON: I know that struggle VERY well. My family goes to a tiny “fundamentalist” church. They don’t even approve of modern Christian worship music–much less heavy metal.  We love the people there like family. But they definitely don’t support my music. I live in that constant tension where, on the one hand, I am deeply saddened by the fact that most churches don’t support the creative arts, but on the other hand, I am very encouraged by the number of individual believers who will go out of their way to support art made by their brothers and sisters in Christ. I don’t think heavy metal or horror books are necessarily for everyone. And I can understand some corporate church bodies feeling hesitant to endorse art that deals with such themes. However, I don’t think it is helpful to just turn those arenas of art over to the world–as if there aren’t incredibly important themes and issues to be wrestled within those genres. That is a huge mistake, in my opinion, when churches only embrace art that seems “positive.” Christ was a man of sorrows. He was brutally murdered. Life is dark and tragic. The world can see right through a Christianity that has a fake sense of happiness.

MIKE: As a writer, I’ve learned that there’s much more to being successful than just writing. Expanding your fanbase through social media, marketing, and public engagement are just parts of the business. On top of that, we still must keep an eye on market trends, cultivate new ideas, and grow in our technical skills. The parallels here between being a writer and an indie musician are obvious. You’ve had to keep the content coming, tour, develop merch, and market the band. Tell me about your approach to the marketing side of the business. You seem to maintain a fairly consistent online presence. Is that something you enjoy? How do you balance maintaining a creative edge while still being business-minded? And what are some of the best ways for a band like yourselves to reach new listeners?

JASON: I am 38, which means I am caught in between generations X and Millenial. So I have a love-hate relationship with the “new industry.” I love building relationships with people through social media. That is just my nature. But I hate the constant rat-race to beat the algorithm and be the next “hot” thing. Sadly, the landscape of the new economy (even beyond the creative arts) increasingly favors whatever bombastic thing can grab people’s attention for 15 seconds. To be totally honest, I haven’t figured out the best way to reach new listeners. I have been very blessed to have a small group of fans (that I would consider my like friends at this point) who consistently support the art I create (whether music or books or whatever it may be). I recently started a Patreon to try to really give more to those people who are the most invested–rather than focusing so much of my time on what seems to be a fruitless endeavor to reach new “fans.” At the end of the day, I guess I am still an old-school guy who believes that word of mouth/grassroots is still the only real way (unless you have a lot of money to spend–and I don’t). So my goal is just to keep creating the best music and other content I can in the hopes that folks will share it with their friends. It can be frustrating at times (it would be nice to just gain a bunch of popularity all at once)  but the upside of the grassroots method is that everyone who “comes into the tent” does so because they really want to be there, and they usually stick around. So I will consider that a blessing and just keep on keeping on.

***

Great stuff, Jason! Thanks so much for visiting. If you’re interested in learning more about Jason Wisdom, you can follow him on Facebook and Twitter. Death Therapy can be found on multiple platforms and Jason’s Christmas project, Wisdom and Wages, can be found here.

Duran Clan Update 2021

Like many of you, 2021 has been a memorable, if not crazy, year for the Durans. For those of you who know us, or just follow me on social media, here’s a brief update on some of what’s been happening with our family.

Perhaps the most significant event of 2021 for us was that Lisa and I finally retired. We’d both worked at the local school district and were blessed to have pensions and built up a decent savings. Being that we paid off our house several years ago, we were able to retire debt-free, a HUGE accomplishment in our day and age. What makes this especially rewarding is that neither of us were college educated or had career goals. As a young family, we struggled greatly. Now, after 40+ years of hard work and frugality, God’s blessed us to enter into a new season of life. We are SO THANKFUL to Him!

At the Grand Canyon

One of the first things we set out to do (like so many retirees) was to travel. One of my bucket list items was to see the Grand Canyon. So in May we hit the road for a 9-day loop through Zion National Park, the Grand Canyon, and Sedona, Arizona. We had a wonderful time. Later that Summer we took an even longer trip along the California coast, staying at Shelter Cove, a small, rather isolated coastal town along what is called the Lost Coast. From there, we made our way south, staying in Carmel before heading down to Santa Barbara. With more time on our hands, we’ve had lots of chances to camp, go on bike rides (we purchased a pair of electric bikes), and visit impromptu with our kids and grandkids. Next year, Lord willing, we hope to see Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons, another one of my bucket list items, as well as a week in Yosemite.

Like everyone else, 2021 has been about navigating COVID. Lisa and I have been blessed to have not contracted the virus, although several of the kids and their spouses have. Still, we are thankful that symptoms were mild for all involved. With three teachers in the family, the pandemic forced them to teach remotely, as well as homeschool their own kids. Our son Jon is a respiratory therapist and was in the belly of the front-line pandemic response. He often worked the COVID wing and saw first-hand the immense pressure on hospital staffing. He was honored by a local church as a Healthcare Hero. We’re very proud of him.

Sadly, we have had several friends pass away from COVID. In fact, our church was hit hard, with two staff pastors going to be with Jesus. Mike officiated three funerals this year (a lot, for him!), one for a fellow school district employee whose husband passed away suddenly from COVID. If anything, this dark season has reminded us of our mortality and the need to live life to its fullest. Likewise, the opportunities for ministry have abounded. As our pastor recently noted, the Church has historically thrived during times of global upheaval, bringing hope and comfort to the hopeless and hurting. In the same way, we truly hope that we can be a light during this dark time.

Our grandkids (all 11 of them) are a spark of energy, joy and sometimes, exhaustion. Theo, our oldest just started high school. The rest are spread out between pre-school and elementary. Kenny was recently baptized. Arayla has taken up horse riding and can eagerly recite types of horses, gear, and commands. Her brother, Jonah, finished a successful year of youth soccer (his first) and appears eager to keep playing. Likewise, Micah finished his first year of youth basketball and managed to make the All-Star team. Cadence built up her savings and bought herself a dog, bringing their canine clan to three. She’s also become quite good at working with clay and crafting. Gia’s cancer remission continues, praise God. Her specialist cut her tests back to bi-annual. Next week she goes for her full-body scan at Children’s Hospital in L.A. (Thanks again to so many of you who have continued to pray for her and her parents during this journey.)

Now that Lisa is free from work, she’s become an in-demand babysitter. In fact, she’s so popular that she’s getting “booked” months in advance by her kids! Meanwhile, Mike has been doing alot of non-fiction writing and has had pieces published in The Stream, Lorehaven, and the Gospel Coalition. He continues to craft and do woodworking, selling at the Made Store in Riverside.

So that’s a brief recap of our year! We’re so thankful for God’s continued blessing and protection. We’re excited to see where He takes us on this new season of life. We appreciate those of you who’ve taken interest and play a part in our journey. May you and yours have a blessed holiday season!