Is unity possible?
Article adapted from episode content.
The events of the past weeks have precipitated a moment of profound reflection within the American cultural and political landscape, raising urgent questions about the possibility and desirability of national unity. Following the memorial service for apologist and leader Charlie Kirk, which was watched by well over 100 million people who heard the Christian gospel articulated clearly by several speakers, some commentators have suggested that a significant turning point has been reached. Indeed, one political commentator, Hugh Hewitt, argued that the left is essentially “done” and “dead and buried,” suggesting the Democrat party has gone “off a cliff into the abyss”. While the spiritual and scale of this event were undeniably astounding—perhaps the largest single setting in history where the gospel of Jesus Christ was proclaimed—it is imperative to resist the temptation to mistake an emotional response or a successful worship service for a fundamental, lasting cultural victory.
The contrast observed between the reaction of the right to this loss and the actions of the left during previous times of conflict is striking and serves as a powerful illustration of the present cultural divide. When leftist activists were offended during the George Floyd riots, the response involved burning down cities and businesses. It is recalled that CNN even featured a reporter with a backdrop of a burning city with the headline “riots mostly peaceful”. Conversely, when a beloved leader on the right was “struck down in the prime of his career,” the response was a solemn church service featuring worship and speakers who testified to “the goodness of God in spite of the dark moment”.
However, the question remains whether this outpouring of sympathy and spiritual engagement signifies a structural shift. We must exercise caution and not confuse “large numbers and good media coverage” for having “won culturally”. The worldview structures that make abortion plausible to millions of citizens “are still deeply entrenched in this culture”. If we are to ascertain where the culture truly stands, we must observe behavioral changes, particularly the outcomes of upcoming ballot initiatives concerning abortion rights in states like Nevada, Arizona, and Missouri, rather than merely relying on expressions of emotion.
Therefore, the work ahead remains centered on convincing people that the pro-life view is “true and reasonable to believe,” much like Charlie Kirk did when he advanced reasons for his views on campuses. What the movement may have now is an opportunity—what some might term an “epistemic parenthetical”—a moment where the culture may “pause long enough to hear what we’re going to say,” rather than immediately rejecting it. It is critical not to lose this “opportunity of conveying to people clearly what the prolife case is”.
The Illusion of Mandated Unity
In the wake of this traumatic event, calls for unity have intensified, with some Christian leaders suggesting that “we need to unify” in obedience to a biblical command, even with leftists. This demand for forced Christian unity is paradoxical, especially given that during the summer of 2020, Christians were often told they were not believers if they did not align with activists burning cities or post the Black Lives Matter symbol on social media. Now, institutions that once wrote “glowing obituaries about George Floyd” and demanded political conformity are calling for unity with the left, while saying “nothing about Charlie Kirk”.
While the gospel is certainly powerful enough to convert anyone, regardless of political or theological leanings—as God saved the Apostle Paul while he was murdering Christians—and while Christians must love their leftist neighbors, act neighborly toward them, and help them in times of personal crisis, true unity is a different concept entirely. We are commanded to act “civily toward people we disagree with”. Friendship can certainly happen over shared interests, such as sports or hobbies like vintage cars, which allow for civil interaction without politics being the central focus.
However, unity implies something “a whole lot deeper” than shared interests. We cannot unify with those who hold “fundamentally different core values and core beliefs”. The underlying problem is that the “left has a whole different set of first principles than the right does,” making true unity structurally and philosophically impossible for a biblically grounded Christian.
Fundamental Worldview Divergence
The chasm preventing unity is illuminated by examining the foundational questions of existence through the lens of the Christian worldview versus the woke leftist worldview.
Ontology (Ultimate Reality)
The Christian worldview grounds its ontology—its claim about what is ultimately real—in a transcendent immaterial God who has revealed Himself to His creation. This worldview follows a definitive storyline: creation (God creating a good world), the fall (man rebelling), the atonement (Jesus dying for sinners), and glorification (the new earth and renewal).
Conversely, the leftist worldview does not view a transcendent God as the ultimate reality. Instead, ultimate reality is defined by “racial structures that are profoundly unjust”. This framework establishes a class dynamic of “oppressors versus the oppressed,” with racial structures and dynamics being the ultimate truth.
Epistemology (Truth and Knowledge)
In the Christian worldview, objective truth, including “moral truth and rational truth, logic, reason,” is grounded in God’s character and is objectively knowable. The biblical perspective places a premium on logical thought, careful inquiry, and evidence-based claims, recognizing truth as objective, not constructed.
The woke left worldview, however, denies the validity of objective reasoning, often calling it “racist and oppressive”. Instead of refuting conservative arguments, this worldview simply attacks conservatives for attempting to be rational, suggesting that logic is used merely “to oppress the people that are under the thumb of society”. Their framework is one of standpoint epistemology, where truth is determined by the perspective of the person who has been “deemed to be oppressed,” rather than by objective evidence or transcendent moral principles.
This divergence was tragically apparent in the response to the brutal murder of a young Ukrainian woman outside Charlotte, North Carolina. On the conservative right, the response centered on objective evil: the act was intrinsically wrong, and the perpetrator was deemed a “murdering thug” who acted using evil. The leftist response, however, was to insist on contextualizing the event, arguing that the perpetrator was a member of an “oppressed race”. According to this reasoning, the act should not be seen as objectively evil, but rather as an “outgrowth of the society he’s been forced to live in”. In this storyline, the real fault lies with the oppressors who caused the killer to do what he did. With such fundamentally opposed views on knowledge and truth, there is “no way to align with such people”.
Ethics (Right and Wrong)
Under the Christian worldview, right and wrong are objective. They are discovered, and human actions must align with them. The Founding Fathers referred to certain first principles—such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as “self-evident,” sourced in a transcendent creator and requiring no argument, but merely recognition. The purpose of government, they argued, is to recognize and defend these rights.
The leftist worldview determines right and wrong subjectively. Actions are judged based on the individual’s context, including “all the underlying considerations that drove this person to do something evil”. Morality, according to the left, is constructed by the individual or society; “We construct moral narratives. We don’t align with them”. A believer in objective, biblical morality cannot align with this constructivist view.
Anthropology (View of Human Beings)
On the question of anthropology—what man is—the Christian response is that human beings possess intrinsic value because they bear the image of their Creator. This value is inherent, irrespective of the capacity to perform cognitive functions, viability, or feelings.
The woke left worldview denies an objective human nature grounded in the image of God; rather, human nature is something constructed. Value is conferred if society determines it. This view is traceable to existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre, who argued that “existence precedes essence,” meaning humans exist first and then determine their nature through subjective choices and thought processes. This leads to situations where two women at 39 weeks of pregnancy can view the same human being in the womb completely differently—one as a “baby” and the other as a “burden”—with the woke worldview offering no objective means to adjudicate between these subjectively constructed views of human nature.
Cosmology (Where are we going?)
The Christian worldview posits that the universe originated with a God who intentionally designed it and human beings. The end will involve God reconciling all believers to Himself through the “shed blood of Jesus,” with non-believers facing eternal punishment.
The woke worldview fundamentally rejects this. The ultimate goal is revolution: tearing down society’s perceived racist structures and rebuilding them along woke principles to advance social justice. Structures deemed obstacles to this revolution—such as the family, man-woman marriage, and the pro-life movement (which restricts the “so-called rights of women to kill their own offspring”)—must be dismantled.
The Necessity of Engagement
Given the lack of alignment on ontology, epistemology, ethics, anthropology, and cosmology, there are no “shared moral principles or shared frameworks” between the conservative right and the woke left. Therefore, unity is not possible.
It is worth noting that past generations sometimes shared a moral framework, allowing for political discussion and friendship despite disagreement on methodology. Forty years ago, it was possible to unify with someone who held opposing political views (e.g., Democrat activism vs. Republicanism) because both sides often agreed on the big stuff: “ultimate reality being grounded in God and transcendent source,” and the objective, knowable nature of truth, and the intrinsic value of human beings. Today, “the two sides don’t align on what the fundamental questions are”.
The path forward must reject the assertion made by some evangelical leaders—like Russell Moore and Tim Keller—who have claimed that Christian political involvement “inhibits the gospel”. Keller, for example, argued that support from evangelicals made it harder to share their faith, and that revival would only occur when political moderates controlled evangelicalism.
This notion is dramatically refuted by the evidence of the recent memorial. The event demonstrated that over 100 million people heard the gospel of Christ proclaimed, which occurred precisely because a young man integrated his political convictions and cultural engagement. The resultant audience was far larger than previously reachable with the gospel. When Frank Turk shared the gospel, it reached over 100 million people, often for the first time. This outcome did not arise from disassociating from the culture but from engaging it. Our responsibility, therefore, is to engage, not disassociate. Organizations like Summit Ministries are instrumental in equipping students to defend and apply their biblical worldview, engaging a culture that fundamentally disagrees on these key questions.
In conclusion, while we must maintain civility and love our neighbors, the pursuit of structural unity with those who deny objective truth, objective morality, and the objective nature of humanity is futile. Genuine unity requires shared moral principles, and in the current cultural moment, those simply do not exist. The focus must shift from impossible unity to persuasive engagement, making a reasoned case for the Christian and pro-life worldviews.
Episode Transcript
This transcript was generated from the episode’s YouTube captions and lightly edited for readability: filler words and the mid-show announcements have been removed. It may still contain transcription errors.
What in the world did we just witness over the last two weeks? We’re going to talk about that. What opportunities are in front of us and what are some of the warnings we need to take to heart as we move forward. We’ll do this on this episode of The Case for Life program. We’re delighted to have you. Thank you for joining us. I think most of you are like me. You watched the Charlie Kirk Memorial and you were, I hope, as I was blown away by what you witnessed.
Has there ever been a time in history where more people heard the gospel of Jesus Christ in a single setting? And the answer is, I can’t think of one. Well over a 100 million people heard a number of speakers clearly articulate the Christian gospel. That Christ died for our sins, that he was our atoning sacrifice, that God raised him from the dead, and that he now rules triumphant over all affairs. I mean it was just amazing to watch. I think of my friend Frank Turk who I think had the most powerful presentation of the day and he made a very great statement.
He said you know Charlie is not in heaven because he sacrificed his life for Christ. Charlie is in heaven because Christ sacrificed his life for Charlie. In other words, it wasn’t Charlie’s good works that got him to heaven. It was the fact that Jesus died in his place condemned as a sinner would be condemned so that those that trust in Christ like Charlie did could inherit eternal life. That’s the glorious news of the gospel. So all of that was just wonderful.
And what else was wonderful is to note the difference between the left and the right. You know, when the left gets offended, they burn down cities. That’s what you saw during the George Floyd riots. Who could forget the incredibly crazy headline that CNN had where they had a reporter with the backdrop of a city burning with leftist activists burning down businesses and their headline was riots mostly peaceful. I mean, we’ve all seen this and it’s amazing to see. What did our side do when one of our beloved apologist leaders is struck down in the prime of his career?
We hold a church service with worship with speakers who testify to the goodness of God in spite of the dark moment we find ourselves in. Quite a contrast there. And I think this leads to something I want to talk about briefly here. There have been people on the right side of the political spectrum and the right side of the theological spectrum making the suggestion that we have now come to a turning point. The culture has now turned against the left. In fact, I heard one political commentator say yesterday, Hugh Hewitt, who said the left is done.
It is dead and buried was essentially what he argued. The Democrat party is over. They’ve gone off a cliff into the abyss. And I would love for that to be true. Make no mistake about it. However, men and women, this is not where we find ourselves. First of all, we don’t know if what we’ve just witnessed will have a lasting impact or is it just an emotional response to a very traumatic event that the nation saw a man get murdered right on live TV.
I don’t know where we’re at with that. Are we just dealing with a sympathy response? Or have there been substantial changes in the worldview structures that people use to analyze where we are? I don’t know. We’re only time’s going to tell that. But here’s one thing I can tell you. If you think this means the pro-life cause now has won, that the political apparatus that we rely on to advance our care for the unborn is now in the driver’s seat permanently.
I can attest to you that is not the case. True. And this is something to rejoice about. A 100 million people witnessed a god glorifying memorial service where people heard the gospel where people responded to the gospel where you had Christ’s name lifted up in worship songs and in testimony to his goodness. All of that is wonderful. I am not one to poo a glorious event like what we saw Sunday. It was great and I wish to say nothing critical about it except to say to you the viewer, don’t confuse a large successful worship service for us having culturally the numbers we need to turn things around on the unborn.
Not that way. Don’t confuse large numbers and good media coverage for having one culturally. I assure you the worldview structures that make abortion plausible to million of our f millions of our fellow citizens are still deeply entrenched in this culture and all of us are now going to have to do the work of convincing people that the pro-life view is true and reasonable to believe. That’s exactly what Charlie Kirk did when he’d go on campuses. He would advance reasons for why the pro-life view made more sense than the pro-abortion view.
So that job is still very much in front of us. What we do have working for us now is perhaps a moment where the culture takes a deep breath and grants us what I call a parenthetical, an epistemic parenthetical. And that sounds like a very complex madeup term. Here’s what I mean by that. Where the culture pauses long enough to hear what we’re going to say. They don’t automatically reject it out of hand the way we’ve seen happen lately. They actually are now willing to listen.
But we need to know what to say now that they’re willing to listen. And I don’t know how long that window will be open, but I for one do not want to lose the opportunity of conveying to people clearly what the pro-life case is. And all of us are going to have to do it. And I’ll give you a telltale sign of where we are on abortion. If you want to know where the culture is, don’t look only to the Charlie Kirk memorial and the outpouring of sympathy for him.
Look to what happens in the ballot initiatives that are coming up on abortion in the next election cycle. States like Nevada, Arizona, Missouri that are going to have ballot initiatives about either writing abortion rights into the state constitution where the legislature will have no say on it or in the case of Missouri where there will be an attempt to reverse the ballot initiative of last year that wrote abortion rights into the constitution of that state. Look at what people do behaviorally more than what they do in terms of expressing their emotions.
So here’s what I would say is we’re going to have to make a case and secondly we’re going to have to resist a temptation to unify with people who we cannot unify with. In fact I think I’ll start there. There’s a lot of call right now I’ve noticed on the online on some podcast of Christian leaders saying okay in the wake of what happened to Charlie Kirk we need to unify. In fact it’s not only that we need to do it from a structural perspective.
We need to do it as a biblical command in obedience to a biblical command. We need to unify with leftists. And I’m here to tell you cannot unify with leftist if you’re a biblically grounded Christian. Now, I want you to hear what I’m saying. I am not making the claim that Christ can’t save people who are left in their political and theological views. God saved the Apostle Paul while he was murdering Christians. So, let’s not say that God has certain people that are outside his reach of salvation.
He will save whoever he wants to. He will call to himself anyone that he is determined to call. So don’t hear me saying that there’s no one who’s a leftist who can’t be converted to Christ. That’s simply false. The gospel is powerful. It can do that. However, what we’re hearing people say, and this is what troubles me, is that we should force Christian unity to happen right now. There needs to be unity. Now, the funny thing is nobody was calling for unity when it was the summer of 2020 when activists were burning down cities.
Instead, we as Christians were told, “You need to get on board with that or you’re not even a believer.” In fact, you were told if you didn’t post the Black Lives Matter fist clenched in the air symbol on your Facebook or Instagram profile, you weren’t pro-life and you probably weren’t Christian either. I mean, that was the kind of nonsense that was going on. You had Christian institutions, colleges, and churches writing up glowing obituaries about George Floyd. But now you look at it and they say nothing about Charlie Kirk other than to say we need to now unify with the left.
And I’m here to tell you that cannot happen. Can we love our leftist neighbors? Absolutely. Should we love them? Yes. Can we act neighborly toward them? Yes. Should we help them in their time of need if they’re facing a personal crisis? Yes. Can we be friends with them and enjoy meals with them and do our best to have conversations? Yeah, of course, we should do all those things. We should act civily toward people we disagree with. But unity implies something a whole lot deeper.
Okay, friendship can happen simply because you might have some fun shared interests with somebody. I don’t have to agree with someone on a deep worldview level to enjoy their company, conversing about cars, for example. I would I love hanging out with people who have vintage cars. I have one. So obviously there’s something in common there. We can talk about that. Sports are another area where I could say, you know what, you’re a UCLA fan. I’m a UCLA fan. Yeah, let’s talk Bruin sport.
That’s all good. We can certainly do that and ought to. By the way, sports and hobbies like vintage cars or whatever your hobby is, ski clubs, whatever, serve a valuable function in our culture. Here’s what they serve. They allow us to interact with people in a civil and fun way without politics being the focus of it. My concern is that everything now is getting politicized, and that’s troubling to me. But we can’t unify with people who hold fundamentally different core values and core beliefs than we do.
The left has a whole different set of first principles than the right does. Okay? And I’ve talked about this on the show, but I’ll review it briefly here. The Christian worldview, its ontology, meaning its claim about what’s ultimately real, is grounded in the concept of a transcendent immaterial God who has made himself known to his creation. This God stands above us. He is utterly other than us and yet he became one of us in the incarnation. That’s the Christian ontological view of the world.
And there’s a storyline that goes with that. It starts with creation, God creating a good world. It then moves on to the fall of man where man rebelss against his creator. Then it goes on to the atonement where Jesus came and died in the place of lost sinners so they could be related or reunited with their creator. And then it’s going to end one day with glorification or the new earth. God summing up all things into renewal. Okay, that’s the Christian storyline.
Creation, fall, redemption, glorification. You can think of it as a circle that that we’re in the process of. And right now, we are between redemption and final glorification. That’s where we are on that circuit, so to speak. The left world view does not view God as the ultimate reality, not a transcendent God. Rather, in their work worldview, what’s ultimately real are racial structures that are profoundly unjust that disadvantage some people and it creates a class of people known as oppressors versus the oppressed.
That’s ultimate reality. Racial structures and racial dynamics. So the Christian worldview and the left liberal or leftist worldview I should say do not align on ultimate reality. They also do not align on epistemology. And by that I mean how we know things on the Christian worldview. Moral truth and rational truth, logic, reason are grounded in God’s character and we can know them objectively. Think about in Isaiah where God tells his rebellious people, “Come, let us reason together, and though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be made white as snow.” You see Jesus making arguments for his teachings, laying out propositions and putting those out there to the people that were his skeptics.
You see the apostle Paul laying out a massive argument in the book of Romans for how we can get right with God, how we are justified. The biblical worldview pre places a premium on logical thought, careful inquiry, evidence-based claims, and truth that is objective in nature. It’s not something we construct. It’s objective in nature. The woke left worldview denies all of that. In fact, it calls objective moral reasoning racist and oppressive. And it doesn’t refute the arguments from conservatives. What that worldview does is simply attack conservatives for trying to be rational.
If you’re rational, that’s only because you want to use your logic to oppress the people that are under the thumb of society. That’s the way the left views truthful inquiry. Well, there’s no unity with people who have a completely different view of knowledge and how we arrive at the truth. Their view is what we call standpoint epistemology. Truth is not determined by looking at the evidence. Truth is determined by the perspective of the person who we have deemed to be oppressed.
So if you want to find out if something like abortion, rape, murder, incest are wrong, you don’t appeal to transcendent moral principles the way you would in the Christian worldview. Because if you do that, you’re being an oppressor. Rather, what you do is you talk to the oppressed people who have either been involved in those issues or experienced them. Now, all of us saw about two weeks ago the unbelievably barbaric and gut-wrenching story about a young Ukrainian woman who was savagely murdered on a train outside Charlotte, North Carolina.
And I mean, right away, the two different ways of looking at that became apparent. On the conservative right, the storyline was, “Wow, this woman didn’t deserve this. Who is this guy who just using evil walks up behind her and slits her throat? What a terrible thing. This is objectively wrong. The left’s response was to say, “No, we don’t call this guy a murderer. We need to contextualize what happened.” And what happened was he did his act of evil not because he’s objectively evil in what he did.
But we need to look at his cultural context to understand it. He is a member of an oppressed race. Therefore, what he did should not be seen as objectively evil. It should be seen as an outgrowth of the society he’s been forced to live in that has pushed him into the category of being an oppressed individual. The real fault for the murder of this young Ukrainian gal, so their storyline goes, is with the oppressors who cause people like this murdering thug to do the things they do.
So you can see that on the idea of objective truth and knowledge there is no way to align with such people. Now let’s go to the next category. Let’s go to the category of ethics. On the Christian worldview, right and wrong are objective. We discover them and then line up with them. In fact, our founding fathers referred to certain first principles as being self-evident, things we know to be objectively true that we don’t even need to argue for quite frankly. They’re things that we recognize intuitively as being right and wrong.
The founders pointed out that our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are things that any person should recognize as being sourced in a transcendent creator. You don’t argue for them. You recognize them. In fact, our founders went so far as to say that’s the purpose of government, to recognize these rights and defend them and promote them. On the left world view, right and wrong is determined subjectively, not objectively. On the leftist worldview, you judge an action based on, like I said a moment ago, the context by which they mean taking into effect all the underlying considerations that drove this person to do something evil.
But not only do they cite context, they say that right and wrong resides with the individual or his society. We construct moral narratives. We don’t align with them. We construct them for ourselves. That’s the view of the left. You can align with that if you’re a believer in Jesus and believe in objective biblical morality. How about the view of human beings? What we call anthropology? You’ll notice we’re going through the major worldview questions in our quest to find out can we unify?
And again, this is not because I hate people on the left. It’s just I’m recognizing you can’t unify with people who hold fundamentally different worldview structures from your own. Okay. On the question of anthropology, what is man? We have an answer. Our answer is this. Human beings have intrinsic value. Meaning they’re valuable in and of themselves because they bear the image of their creator. They’re not valuable because they can perform certain cognitive functions. They’re not valuable because they are viable, can live independent of another human being.
They’re not valuable because they feel things. Okay. On the woke left worldview, human nature is not objective. It’s not grounded in the image of God. It’s something we construct. You have value if your society determines you have value. And in fact you can trace this back to the existentialist philosopher Sart Jean Paul Sart. He argued that existence precedes essence. Now here’s what he meant by that. Human beings first exist and then determine themselves by their choices, by the things they engage in, by their thought processes, etc.
In other words, there’s no such thing as objective human nature. Rather, human nature is something we construct subjectively for ourselves. So you could have a situation where there’s two women pregnant at 39 weeks. One woman talks of her child as a baby that she cannot wait to meet and nurture. The other woman speaks of her child in the womb as a burden, an intruder. And on the woke worldview, there’s no way to adjudicate between those two views of the human being at 39 weeks in uterero.
One constructs meaning according to her own worldview. The other one recognizes the objective value. Then there’s the question of cosmology. How did we get here? Where are we going? How does this all end? Well, on the Christian worldview, it all started with a God who intentionally designed a universe and a world and designed human beings with a particular nature. And it’s going to end one day when God reconciles all things to himself. That all believers will be reconciled to their creator through the shed blood of Jesus and non-believers will be in eternal punishment in hell.
Okay, that’s the Christian worldview. The woke worldview rejects that outright. Rather, ultimately where this is going is revolution. We have to tear down all of society’s racist structures and we need to rebuild them along woke principles and we need to tear down things that get in the way of advancing social justice. Things like the family, things like manwoman marriage, things like the pro-life movement that restricts the so-called rights of women to kill their own offspring. The two world views do not align on cosmology any more than they align on epistemology, ontology, ethics, or on where we’re going cosmologically.
That there’s just no alignment there. So when we talk about unity, what we should be talking about is shared moral principles or shared frameworks. We don’t have that when we talk about the conservative right versus the left woke worldview. The two worldviews do not align. Now within a shared moral framework, there can be discussion. For example, if you if you went back 40 years ago, I remember when I was in college, I actually had a lot of Christian friends that were Democrat party activists even.
And we would sit around and we would discuss things. And here’s the nature of how our discussion went. Back then, I had a friend named Mike. And Mike was a member of a group at the time called Alliance for Survival. And what Alliance for Survival did is it went around trying to discourage the US populace from supporting nuclear weapons and trying to get the US to disarm even though the Soviets were arming to the teeth. And this was early in Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
And I remember sitting around talking with my buddy Mike and we were friends, no animosity between us. We agreed on all the things I just went through. We agreed in ultimate reality being grounded in God and transcendent source. We agreed on truth being objective, real and knowable. We agreed that human beings had intrinsic value. And we were discussing how best to live out those principles. We agreed on. Is it best to vote for Democrats to do that or Republicans? Now, at the time, you could unify with somebody who held that view because they agreed on the big stuff.
We’re long past that now. Right now, the two sides don’t align on what the fundamental questions are. So, unity is not possible. We’re going to take a quick break. When we come back, I’m going to give you a little snippet of what I think we need to be doing as we move forward in the interesting times we find ourselves in. I’ll see you in just a minute. Friends, I could not be more excited to welcome Summit Ministries as a sponsor of The Case for Life program.
Summit Ministries does what no other organization does. They equip Christian kids to defend their biblical worldview before they go off to college and face all kinds of opposition. I can’t think of a finer ministry for helping kids. If you want to learn more about it, see our website and you can learn.
Welcome back everybody. Let me tell you what gives me hope. Number one reason that gives me hope. There are organizations out there now very similar to what we saw Charlie Kirk put together in Rise Up or Raise Up, pardon me. And one of my favorites is Summit Ministries where I speak and teach. I teach the pro-life apologetics material for Summit. And Summit trains Christian students to defend their biblical worldview and not just defend it but apply it and engage a culture that disagrees with us on key fundamental questions.
So unlike some evangelical re leaders like Russell Moore and Tim Keller and others that were busy pronouncing the death of the Christian right politically. Summit teaches students to apply a biblical worldview to the real world they live in and make a case for the Christian worldview with people who don’t hold that view. I think that’s absolutely amazing and that gives me a lot of hope. You know, Christians have heard for a long time that our political involvement inhibits the gospel. I mean, guys like Russell Moore and Tim Keller have said this.
In fact, I got a quote here from Tim Keller that is just astounding to me. Here’s what he says. He says that support from evangelicals has made it harder for Christians to share their faith. And he believed that more that revival would only happen when politically moderated forces, politically political moderates took control of evangelicalism. Really? No. What we saw with Charlie Kirk was a 100 million people at one time hearing the gospel of Christ proclaimed. How did that happen? Not by walking away from our political convictions and our cultural engagement, but rather that happened because there was a young man who integrated those things.
And as a result, his audience is far bigger than anybody ever had a chance to reach with the gospel. Amazing. I mean, when Frank Turk stood up there and shared the gospel, over a 100red million people hearing it often for the first time. That didn’t come from evangelicals disengaging the culture. It came because they engaged it. That’s our job, men and women. We need to engage, not disassociate. Thanks for joining us today.