Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday I talked about the book on free speech by Jonathan Turley (professor of law at George Washington University). Today I would like to talk about the recent column where he documents “The Left’s Assault on the Constitution.”
The reason for his article, and many other articles about the Constitution, is due to a New York Times article that had the title “America’s Constitution is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” Lathan Watts writes, “Our Constitution Isn’t Dangerous, But Our Ignorance of It Is.” Jerry Newcombe responds by asking “Is the Constitution Really Dangerous?”
The purpose of Jonathan Turley’s column is to show that the distain shown for the Constitution in the one New York Times article goes far beyond that one article. The assault on the Constitution involves more than court-packing and is targeted on the freedom of speech.
He quotes a UC Berkeley law school professor who has written a book, No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States. An editor of The Nation magazine calls the Constitution “trash” and urges the abolition of the US Senate. A law professor at Georgetown Law School complains that Americans are “slaves” to the Constitution.
The article in the New York Times repeats similar comments and scoffs at what the author calls “Constitutional worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” And I might mention a previous New York Times op-ed by two law professors from Harvard and Yale who argued, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed.”
These are just a few of the quotes provided by Jonathan Turley. They remind us that it is time to defend the Constitution.

Kerby Anderson
Free speech is very important, but many Americans believe that violence may be necessary to stop candidates or citizens with the wrong views about free speech. On my radio program, I frequently quote Jonathan Turley (professor of law at George Washington University). Though he is a liberal who would disagree with my perspective on many social issues, I quote him because of his dedication to free speech.
I recommend his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. He provides the history of free speech and makes an excellent case for free speech. However, he laments that for some people “violent language can become violent action.” He explains, “We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others.”
One chilling illustration of this I discovered in an article by Bob Unruh. He cites polling research that uncovered the disturbing fact that 26 million Americans believe the “use of force is justified to prevent Trump from becoming president.” The study on “Political Violence and the Election: Assessing the threat from the Left and the Right” also concluded these 26 million are “active, dangerous” and have “growth potential.” On the other side, the study also found that another 18 million say the use of force is justified to “restore Trump to the presidency.”
Jonathan Turley recently cited the number of politicians working with extreme groups and concluded they were “playing a dangerous game toying with groups” that call for violence. I agree with his conclusion that this recent poll is a “chilling account of the growing radicalism in America.”

Kerby Anderson
I want to talk about the word unconfiscatable. Apparently, it isn’t even a word found in many dictionaries, which is why when I write it on my word processor, it has a red squiggly line beneath it. Mitchell Askew brought my attention to this word in his latest book.
He argues that the word isn’t used because nearly every asset we own can be confiscated. The money you have in the bank or the funds you have in the stock market through an IRA or 401k are ultimately in the hands of a third party. It is possible that they or the government could prevent you from getting your money. Just ask the people in Turkey who felt they needed to rob their local bank so they would get the money they put in the bank. Just ask the Canadian truckers who had their bank accounts frozen by the government.
Something that would be more difficult to confiscate would be what we refer to as a bearer asset. That means you have possession of it. One example would be gold. If you take possession of gold coins and put them in a safe deposit box in the bank, you have possession of them. Or do you? In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 that required Americans to give up most of their gold in exchange for cash.
We always assume that we have an inalienable right to private property. But sometimes, especially in other countries, that right to property can be lost. That is why Mitchell Askew argued that bitcoin is unconfiscatable as a form of property. It cannot be taken from you, and it can be moved to anywhere in the world. Few other assets in the world are truly unconfiscatable.

Kerby Anderson
More than a decade ago when I was teaching a class on creation, I heard about some Christians who believed in a flat earth. I was aware that some people were online promoting a flat earth theory but assumed they might just be evolutionists trying to mock Christians.
Apparently, there is a percentage of Christians who believe in a flat earth, deny that men walked on the moon, and even deny the Holocaust ever occurred. One flat earth documentary denies the existence of other planets and denies that stars are far away. As you would imagine, it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to reject the established facts of science and history.
Long before we had pictures of the earth from space, we had evidence of the earth’s curvature. This included the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse and the observation from people who would watch ships sail off in the distance and then slowly sink below the horizon.
 Of course, we have so many more pieces of evidence. I have had an astronaut who walked on the moon in my Sunday School class. I have had another who held the record (until recently) of spending the greatest number of days in the International Space Station. And all of us have pictures and videos of the earth from space.
 Nevertheless, some Christians take Bible passages out of context, like Job 38. Or they quote from a non-biblical source like the book of Enoch. A recent Albert Mohler podcast had a question from someone who asked if a man who believed in a flat earth should be disqualified from being an elder in the church.
Dr. Danny Faulkner (Answers in Genesis) has written about the flat earth phenomenon, and apparently has a book coming out on the subject. That may be a good resource to share with a flat earther, though I fear it won’t make much of a difference.

Kerby Anderson
Earlier this month the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve cut the short-term interest rate target by 50 basis points. The financial world was waiting to see what Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell would announce. Even after it happened, commentators were contrasting the words of Powell with his actions and suggesting he was more worried than he sounds.
Guests that I have had on my radio program like to make interesting comments about the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, they might say, isn’t a federal agency and has doubtful reserves. Another might say that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is the most powerful person in America. What should we think about all of this?
The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to keep inflation low (at 2%) and to also keep unemployment low. It engages in what is called “monetary policy” in an attempt to achieve those two goals. This central bank was established in late December 1913. If you want to read how it was created, you might want to read the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, which is now in its fifth edition.
As I have talked about in previous commentaries, the Federal Reserve has had to “print” money to finance the massive government spending during these last few decades. In one interview, Jerome Powell explained they “have the ability to create money digitally, and we do that by buying Treasury Bills or bonds or other government guaranteed securities.” He also added in another interview that the Federal Reserve has become the most important factor in the global economy.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal wrote that Jerome Powell has become the most powerful economic voice in America. Perhaps now you can see why so many people pay attention to what Jerome Powell says and what the Federal Reserve does.

Penna Dexter
There’s a growing concern in the U.S. and many other countries that people are not having enough babies.
The fertility rate in the U.S. is now approximately 1.62 births per female. This is well below replacement level fertility which is 2.1 births per female.
Why should we care about this?
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat worries a lot about the declining birthrate. In his book, THE DECADENT SOCIETY, he laments that “amid all of our society’s material plenty, one resource is conspicuously scarce. That resource is babies.” He writes frequently about “the grim consequences of an aging, childless future.”
The concern is frequently highlighted in other major news sources including Bloomberg, CNN Business, The Wall Street Journal, BBC, and The Economist, with headlines like, “Global fertility has collapsed with profound economic consequences.” 
Propelled by falling birthrates, the U.S. population is rapidly aging. As the number of productive workers shrinks and the population of elderly rises, we’ll face a shortage of workers to support the older generations. This accelerates the economic pressures on childbearing-aged couples.
There are several reasons for the declining birthrate. Couples are marrying past the peak age for human biological fertility, which is 22-24. And, increasingly, people are not marrying at all. One in four 40-year-old American adults have never been married.
To many Millennials and Gen Z-ers, having kids is one of many lifestyle choices. John Stonestreet, host of Breakpoint, says that in our current culture, “we make the choice to have children or not based on convenience, enjoyment, and personal fulfillment.” For many young women, “motherhood often lands on the losing side of that evaluation.”
Elon Musk has touted the work of Kevin Dolan, organizer of The Natal Conference who describes to his audiences “a problem that will define the next century…predicated on one question. Will your children have children of their own?”
All too often, the answer is ‘no.’

Kerby Anderson
School shootings have been in the news for two reasons. Earlier this month, we were able to see the full text of the shooter at Covenant School. The next day, the news was about a shooter at a high school in Georgia.
The Covenant School shooter’s diary is a reminder of the sad and disturbed thoughts running through those who take out their anger on other students. This trans-identifying 28-year-old who killed six people had been in psychological counseling for many years. She manifested all kinds of self-hatred and had eating disorders.
Let me quote from one expert in the article, “The Rise in School Shootings Reflects Both ‘Mental Health and Spiritual Crisis’.” Dr. Jennifer Bauwens observes, “We’re both having a mental health and a spiritual crisis, and there’s just not one factor that contributes to this problem.” After looking at the diary, she concluded that, “this young woman was very oppressed and had a lot of spiritual ideas.” She also added “You do see sort of a typical profile of someone who is identifying as transgender, where there’s all this other host of mental health issues.”
She believes that young people, who are dealing with emotional issues and feel alienated from society, are attracted to some of these radical ideologies. This becomes an excuse since “all my problems are this issue.” That doesn’t mean ”that everyone who identifies as transgender is going to carry out something horrific like this (a school shooting).”
In previous commentaries, I have documented the mental health crisis affecting the younger generations. Social, psychological, and spiritual issues are in play and must be addressed. This is the challenge for schools and the church to make a difference in the lives of these troubled young people.

Kerby Anderson
As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, there has been a significant difference of opinion between the media and average Americans about the economy. The media (and members of the Biden administration) point to certain positive economic indicators and believe Americans should be excited about our current economy.
Earlier this month, the Census Bureau produced its report on household income, poverty, and health coverage. They discovered that real median household income remains lower than in 2019 and has barely grown since 2020. The Wall Street Journal editorial explains “Why Americans Are Sour on the Economy.” The editors even provided a chart that shows contrast between the first three years of the Trump and Biden presidencies.
During the Trump years, incomes climbed for Asians by $14,600, for whites by $8,910, for Hispanics by $6,960, and for blacks by $4,540. By contrast, income gains during the Biden years were modest. Incomes for Asians rose only $1,500, for whites only $850, for Hispanics only $700, and for blacks $2,650. The editors add that because COVID reduced incomes in 2020, this comparison, if anything, flatters the Biden record.
If you look at the last year, you see an even more dismal record. Real median earnings for full-time workers last year declined 1.6 percent. The decline was even worse for high-school grads (3.3%). What that means is that inflation outpaced wages for most low-wage workers.
I think you can see why so many Americans are sour on our current economy.

Kerby Anderson
In his latest book, The Eclipse of God, Erwin Lutzer exposes our nation’s disastrous efforts to redefine God in its own image. Because of this, confusion about God has even crept into the church. He was on my radio program recently to warn us of the danger.
He began by explaining the title. Just as the moon obscures the sun’s light during an eclipse, today’s radical secularism has obscured the light of God. He wrote this book with three objectives. First, to better understand the intellectual roots of this present darkness. Second, to rejoice that God is sovereign and stands ready to give us the blessing of His presence, no matter our predicament. Third, to remind us that only a repentant and submissive church can shine the light of the gospel with confidence and strength.
Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead.” But who killed God? Erwin Lutzer identifies three gravediggers who prepared a coffin for God: Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud. And once God was gone, we became our own God which is discussed in the chapter “Nearer My God to Me: Worshipping at the Shrine of Self-Made Deities.”
The second part of his book establishes what we need to do in “Returning to the God of Our Fathers.” This includes returning to the God of Truth, not “Truthiness.” We must also be returning to the God of Moral Absolutes, Not Our Personal Preferences. And it involves returning to God as Lawgiver, Not a Vacillating Ruler.
His book is a timely and practical manual intended to deepen our love for the God of the Bible. It will empower you to live and speak as a light for Him in a culture of darkness.

Kerby Anderson
When was the last time you had a meaningful conversation? That is a question Sean McDowell and Tim Muehlhoff ask in their new book, End the Stalemate: Move Past Cancel Culture to Meaningful Conversations.
We live in a cancel culture. But that doesn’t mean we must either conform or remain silent. Nearly a third of people report they have stopped talking to a friend or family member due to a disagreement. And nearly two-thirds of people say they stay quiet about their beliefs due to the fear of offending others. We can bring light to the darkness. We can be a beacon of sanity that promotes meaningful conversations.
Sean was on my radio program to talk about the book. The first five chapters helped in “setting the stage.” How did we get to this place? He explained that it has been a “perfect storm” of factors: (1) people are hurting, (2) there is a clash of worldviews, (3) opinions are openly expressed on social media, and (4) there is a communication breakdown. That is why we are angry and divided.
The authors then provide six chapters with “practical tips for engaging others.” We learn how to engage explosive issues. We can also create connection and emotional awareness. There are helpful suggestions on how to engage in perspective-taking, how to structure a conversation, and how to speak the truth in love, from a biblical understanding.
There is also a helpful section on presenting the other side using strawman and steelman arguments. A strawman argument comes from paraphrasing an argument in the weakest possible way. A steelman argument is to consider the best and strongest argument. If we wish to have a meaningful dialogue, we shouldn’t minimize the other person’s opinion and perspective.
We need to apply the lessons in this book so we can end this stalemate.

Kerby Anderson
Dr. Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute) was in my studio recently to talk about evolution’s failed predictions. I was able to find an article he wrote in the past about “Design vs. Descent: A Context of Predictions,” which you might want to read to get a fuller explanation.
He begins with a quote from the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper, who wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable. Certainly, a scientific theory that is taught in the public schools should have empirical evidence and thus be falsifiable.
Casey Luskin discussed four lines of evidence. Here are two of them.
One line of evidence is biochemical complexity. A prediction of descent would be that there would be few machine-like biologically complex structures in the cell. A prediction from design would be that we should find machine-like irreducibly complex structures that cannot be easily explained by a gradual evolutionary process. He described such irreducibly complex structures and then argued that the best theory to explain the data is design.
Another line of evidence is biochemical functionality. The prediction of descent would be that the genetic code in living creatures would contain a significant amount of genetic baggage. This would be “junk DNA” that is left over from failed genetic adaptations. The prediction of design would be that the genetic code is not full of functionless “junk DNA.”
As we have increased our knowledge of genetics, we have discovered that the so-called “junk DNA” has an important function within the cell. He argues that this functioning DNA would be expected or explained under a design paradigm.
If we look at the predictions and the scientific data, we discover that design is a better explaining theory than descent.

Penna Dexter
It wasn’t a joke or an anomaly when, last December, a video series celebrating the Dual Income No Kids — or DINK — lifestyle went viral. Young American couples argued that their freedom to take European vacations and their ability to splurge on pets and bulk purchases at Costco are preferable to being tied down to parenthood. They said that for this reason, they likely won’t have kids.
Add to that, a new survey from the insurance company, MassMutual, which finds that nearly 1 in 4 Millennials and GenZ-ers plan to remain childless for financial reasons. Of the 1000 adults surveyed, all of whom were in the 18-43 age group, 23 percent don’t plan to have children. They said they prefer the financial freedom they’ll have by remaining childless or they think they simply can’t afford the cost of raising kids.
In July, the Pew Research organization published results of a study on childlessness. According to their report, “When asked why they are unlikely to have children, the top answer for adults younger than 50 is that they just don’t want to.” Forty-four percent of this group said, “they want to focus on other things.” And 36 percent said, “they can’t afford to raise a child.”
It does cost a lot to raise children. And the price is rising. But why?
Timothy Carney, father of six and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute wrote a book with the title: Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be. Extras, like lessons, camps, travel sports, are enriching, but not crucial to childrearing. Some things we think are necessities may not be.
The baby bust resulting from our country’s below-replacement birthrate has dire financial repercussions. Our society needs those people. When millions of couples make the stark choice never to have children the country’s future and their own will certainly be impoverished.

Kerby Anderson
How close are some elections? Let’s look at last year’s 2023 off-year elections. Twenty-six elections ended in ties, and another seven were decided by one vote. According to the Public Interest Legal Foundation, there have been 625 elections that ended in tie votes, and 162 elections that were decided by one vote in just the last 22 years.
In the past, I have told the story of Penny Pullen in Illinois who lost a primary vote. But there were some irregularities. Judge Francis Barth concluded that the election was a tie and ordered a coin toss, and she lost the election. Later she found out that many members of her church hadn’t bothered to vote in the primary election and could have made a crucial difference.
We have also had many close presidential elections. George W. Bush won the 2000 Presidential election by the slimmest of margins. His election essentially was decided by 537 votes in Florida. He won re-election in the 2004 Presidential election again by very slim margins. He won the 20 electoral votes from the state of Ohio with 50.8 percent of the vote.
The last presidential election was closer than most people know. Joe Biden won three key states by the slimmest of margins (by 0.6 percentage points or less). If you flip fewer than 43,000 votes across those three states, the electoral college would have been tied 269 to 269. In case you are wondering, the outcome would be decided by each House delegation. Since the Republicans controlled more states, Donald Trump would be re-elected.
The presidential election may be this close again, and it is certain that many other elections will be very close. Anyone who wonders if his or her vote will make a difference needs to look at how close elections have been.

Kerby Anderson
A recent column in the Washington Post observes that “Western government until recently generally did not regard social media and the vision of free speech they promoted as being fundamentally at odds with democracy.” The author concludes that now these governments do, which is why Elon Musk and Pavel Durov are facing “the revenge of the regulators.” He also warns these men “will have to think more carefully” about “whose soil they’re on when they step off the plane.”
Matt Taibbi exposes what is happening now that “Liberalism Removes Its Mask.” He laments that former Labor Secretary Robert Reich published a guide in The Guardian on how to “rein in” Elon Musk and even suggests that “regulators around the world threaten Musk with arrest.”
Matt Taibbi also points to two articles in the New York Times. The first wondered if “The First Amendment is Out of Control.” The more recent article acknowledged and then asked, “The Constitution is Sacred. Is it Also Dangerous?’
We also might mention the comments by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She complained that the First Amendment was “hamstringing the government.” Of course, that is the purpose of that amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I believe what is happening is exposing leftism within liberalism. In previous commentaries, I have made a distinction between liberalism and the left. Liberals and conservatives believe is free speech. Leftists do not.
I discovered this many decades ago while speaking on college campuses. Liberal professors were willing to engage in debate and discussion. Radical leftists worked to shut down debate and wanted to stop any discussion.
Liberal pundits and politicians loved to talk about free speech on social media platforms, until they saw comments they didn’t like. Now the mask if off.

Kerby Anderson
Peter St. Onge asks, “How did American voters get so dumb?” If you have ever watched the answers given by people on the street to historical or political questions, you know that many American voters are not well educated about our history or form of government. Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” and Jessie Watters’ “Watters’ World” provide many laughs but also cause us to shake our heads.
When he was a professor, Peter St. Onge ran every inaugural address through a Flesch-Kincaid text analysis to measure the grade level. Most of the inaugural addresses during the 20th century were written at the 13th and 14th grade level. Barack Obama’s inaugural was 8th grade level. Donald Trump’s inaugural was 9th grade level. Joe Biden’s inaugural was 7th grade level.
George Washington’s inaugural began with: “Among the vicissitudes incident to life.” Andrew Jackson’s inaugural began with: “Undertaking the arduous duties that I have been appointed.” Joe Biden’s inaugural began with: “This is America’s day.”
Back to his original question: How did we get so dumb? His answer: the public schools. He reminds us that the modern government school came from 1800’s Prussia that suffered from worker riots and peasant revolts. The goal was indoctrination, not education.
Parents and taxpayers have every right to ask: What are we teaching in the schools? Graduates who we see interviewed on the street corner don’t seem to have a clue about this nation’s history or about the structure of government.
Most of them could not pass the citizenship test we give to people who come here from other countries and desire to become U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, they will vote in November even though they don’t know enough to make an informed vote.

Kerby Anderson
During this campaign season, will voters settle for generalities, or will they demand specifics? We will find out in seven weeks. Politicians are known for speaking with vague platitudes, but usually they are forced to give more specific answers when asked by voters or the media. Because this commentary is heard nationally, I will focus on the presidential candidates, though I could also use the state and local elections to illustrate my point as well.
Kamala Harris talks in generalities: “In our nation, I think the people are ready to turn the page … one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class … we need a new way forward.” Every time she uses one of these catch phrases and filler words, I want to ask: How do you plan to do this?
There are some specifics like a proposed 28% tax on long-term capital and a tax on unrealized capital gains for taxpayers with a high net worth. But specifics are rarely mentioned. Instead, phrases about hope, optimism, and a way forward are used frequently.
By contrast, you have speeches and interviews with Donald Trump where he proposes an extension of his previous tax rates and a targeted tax cut. He wants to establish a Government Efficiency Commission. This time he proposes removing 10 regulations for every one regulation.
One of the biggest criticisms at the Democratic Convention was of Project 2025, which is full of specific recommendations. The Trump administration may not implement many of them, and you may not like some of them. But the 900-page document is detailed and specific.
This election will determine if voters settled for generalities or demanded specifics. American voters deserve more than vague platitudes and campaign slogans.

Kerby Anderson
Should parents be held criminally liable if their child shoots others in a school or public place? That is a question being considered in Georgia. The 14-year-old shooter (who killed four people) has been indicted, but so has his 54-year-old father.
Earlier this year, a jury in Michigan convicted parents after their son killed four students and wounded six others. They were prosecuted for being negligent. They knew of their son’s mental health issues and failed to secure the family firearms.
Let’s look at this question logically and take guns out of the equation for a minute. Imagine a 4-year-old is left in a car that is running for a moment by a mother (who went to get the mail or open the garage door). He jumps into the car seat, somehow puts the car in reverse and backs over and kills four people. I think all of us would assume the parents are fully responsible for his act because of negligence.
Now change it to a 30-year-old in a car who mows down and kills four people in a moment of road rage. We wouldn’t hold the parents responsible at all. But what would we think if it was a 14-year-old doing the same thing?
In the Georgia case, there are other factors. The shooter had made previous threats and was interviewed by the police. His father bought him the gun. Other family members report the family was dysfunctional and the boy was the subject of lots of verbal abuse and suffering from significant emotional turmoil.
Those factors explain why the Georgia authorities charged the father with involuntary manslaughter, second degree murder, and cruelty to children. We will learn more as the case progresses, but this case sends a clear signal to parents that they are responsible for their child’s mental state and subsequent actions.

Penna Dexter
South Dakota is one of the most pro-life states in America. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, South Dakota had enacted 111 statutes restricting abortion, the most of any state. Under a trigger law that took effect after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, abortion is illegal in South Dakota, except to save the life of the mother.
The state’s pro-lifers work hard to elect legislators who will protect the sanctity of human life. Now they are battling a proposed constitutional amendment that could reverse much of the pro-life legislation on the books in South Dakota.
In states that allow Initiative and Referendum, activists can go directly to voters and sometimes use deceptive language and tactics to win the PR battle and undo the work of legislators.
Post-Dobbs, six states, including purple Kansas, have enshrined abortion rights into their constitutions via ballot measure. This November, voters in nine states will consider similar pro-abortion initiatives. Make that ten states, if an extreme pro-abortion amendment ends up on the ballot in South Dakota
The passage of Amendment G could legalize most late-term abortions and reverse protections and restrictions on abortion enacted over the past 20 years.
Life Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit alleging various instances of wrongdoing during the process of gathering signatures to place Amendment G on the ballot.
An army of pro-lifers blanketed the state, hitting farmers markets and other outdoor events where paid signature-gatherers were at work. Folks even wore body cameras to record arguments being used to get people to sign. Evidence showing that Amendment G operatives were breaking laws or lying to get signatures could augment efforts to invalidate the ballot measure.
There’s also a well-organized education campaign to inform people in every South Dakota county of the extreme nature of Amendment G.
South Dakota could be a test case for defeating these pro-abortion initiatives.
To help, go to lifedefensefund.com.

Kerby Anderson
We have idols today, but rarely are they in the form of carved statues and found in religious shrines. A study by Lifeway Research asked Protestant pastors in this county what they felt were modern-day idols.
Two-thirds (67%) of the pastors believe comfort is a desire that Christians have made into an idol. A majority also reported that control or security (56%), money (55%), and approval (51%) are idols that have significant influence on their congregations. They were also asked to choose the potential idol with the most sway over people in their churches. These pastors again pointed to comfort (30%) and control or security (20%) as the most important.
Scott McConnell serves as the executive director of Lifeway Research. “It’s easy to think that those in Christian churches have chosen their God and are faithful to Him.” He also noted that “pastors quickly acknowledge how divided their congregations’ allegiances can be. These gods don’t have a physical shrine, but they compete for the hearts of Christians.”
There were other modern-day idols that were reported by many pastors but not a majority of them. Fewer said that success (49%) and social influence (46%) are idols in their congregations. Even lower on the list were political power (39%) and sex or romantic love (32%).
One interesting statistic was the fact that a smaller percentage (14%) of pastors said none of these idols had an influence in their churches. Differences in age and education were also relevant. Younger pastors, for example, were more likely to say that money is an idol in the church, while more educated pastors pointed to both money and control.
If you are a pastor or a Bible fellowship teacher, you need to look at this survey and consider what teaching you might bring to this issue of modern-day idols.

Kerby Anderson
Many Americans are concerned about the impact that social media and Big Tech are having on society. Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of documentaries have been focusing on problems from this technology.
One of the most important documentaries to come along is “The Social Dilemma.” It features an interesting blend of talking-head interviews with various Big Tech figures, with a fictional dramatization of what happens when children in one family become addicted to social media.
Much of the discussion follows Tristan Harris. He is referred to as “the conscience of Silicon Valley.” In the past, he worked for Google, but left because he was concerned about the direction of technology and decided to establish the Centre for Humane Technology.
Near the end of the program, he raises the issue of the ethical and philosophical foundation rarely discussed. He concludes, “If we don’t agree on what is true or that there is such a thing as truth, we’re toast. This is the problem beneath other problems. Because if we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t navigate out of any of our problems.”
It was a great admission and illustrates the foundational problem confronting Big Tech in particular, and society in general. The assumption running through this video is that there is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, or truth is personal. Relative ethics or postmodern ethics is the ethical assumption made when a critic expresses his or her own opinion. There is no appeal to an absolute standard of right and wrong.
The problem isn’t the technology. Tristan Harris describes the technology as “simultaneous utopia and dystopia.” The problem is the lack of an ethical foundation to evaluate it.