A friend sent me a draft e-mail, that he wrote to a family member, who has rejected historic Christianity for progressive Christianity. He was asked to give the basics of salvation, and his attempt to explain the gospel to her is below. My advice included taking out the Christianese terms. Do you think he did a good job? I think his emphasis on what is not the gospel (what needs to be rejected) makes this a first-class explanation of the gospel.

---

So, you’ve asked the 10,000 talent question (alluding to Matthew 18:23-35).  You are basically asking me what I think the Gospel is.  I’ll try to answer that in a minimalistic way, using my own characterization of it rather than just making doctrinal statements.

One must accept that there is a God, who is a higher authority than themselves.  How much one must first believe about that God is debatable, but candidate beliefs would be that He is personal (having a mind like, but greater than, ours), powerful, and the creator of this cosmos and everything in it — He owns it all.  Our natural intuition is to see beauty, order, complexity, and “design” in nature.  There is a difference in belief vs unbelief in that some think it is just the appearance of design and some acknowledge their intuition that it actually is designed.

One must acknowledge their moral intuitions, and recognize that there are actually right and wrong things in this world.  It’s not just whatever you want to do, or whatever society decides in a given time or culture.

Given that morality is then understood to be a transcendent thing (universal and independent of time and culture), the connection is made to God as the author of this moral law.

One must then recognize that he/she regularly fails to live up to this law, even according to just their meager understanding of it, and even by the standards of morality that they make up for other people.

One must not try to suppress this, or therapize it away.  One must recognize there is a problem and real moral culpability.  One must recognize that they feel guilty and have self-esteem issues because they actually do have guilt and issues.

One must make the connection between guilt and their standing before God.  Being good sometimes and in some ways does not erase the bad you do, past, present, or future.  One must be willing to bend the knee to God’s will regarding morality.

One must also come to see the moral failure (sin) in their lives as a bad thing that they’d like to be rid of, rather than excusing it as the fault of others, or revelling in it as part of the pleasure of life, or shrugging it off as just “who I am.”

One must appeal to God in these matters for both forgiveness and help in living as they should.

Given that God has provided a champion for the problem that humanity faces (the backstory of which not all will fully know), one whose heart is truly yielded to all these things will naturally and eagerly receive Word of this as Good News.  God has solved the seemingly irreconcilable demands of both justice and forgiveness in that champion.

Those with ears to hear will receive this solution — Jesus — and believe what He has done in life and on the cross for their sake — the resurrection being both confirmation of His divine authority and also the sign of the defeat of death which awaits us all, and is the only barrier between us and facing this God whom we fail at every turn.  They will believe on (or upon) Jesus as Lord and their means of salvation, surrendering dependence upon their own ideas of self-righteousness and earning the favor of God.

The outward expression that we have understood and accepted these things is that we have made Jesus Lord and committed ourselves to following Him, conform our character to His, resist our sinful inclinations, and are interested in learning all about Who God is and what has been done for us in Christ.

This commitment to the Lordship of Christ naturally leads to the acceptance of subsequent beliefs.  If Jesus is indeed Lord, then He holds all authority, and what He said and taught to His followers is our guide — the New Testament.  And if this is the divine story, as intended by God for men, then we have reason to believe that it is comprehensible to us, and He will insure (in spite of the fallibility of men and demonic plots) that its essential message will not be lost or corrupted until all things are completed.  Given that Jesus affirmed every categorical section of the Old Testament, and claimed to be its promised Messiah, then that, too, is a source of truth and understanding.

Those doctrines that are sometimes characterized as “essential” for salvation, are merely the highlights of this redemption narrative, which are those things being clear and consistent, and which indicate that someone has yielded themselves to the authority of Christ and the scriptures, and understands these things.  It is not that believing them is what saves, but they are what the saved naturally come to believe.  Confessing them is the tangible, verbal act of affirming the Gospel, but is not necessarily identical to a life committed to putting it into practice, which is saving faith.

Previously, I blogged about the murder of Iryna Zarutska, the 23-year-old woman who was murdered by a criminal who was a 14-time repeat offender, in Democrat-dominated Charlotte, NC. What struck most people about the story is how Democrats didn’t want to accept any responsibility for their soft-on-crime policies. And now we have a similar case in South Carolina.

Daily Caller has an exclusive story about it:

Stephen Federico, the father of 22-year-old Logan Federico, told the Daily Caller no Democratic lawmakers have contacted him since her murder.

Logan was shot and killed during a May 3 suspected home invasion while visiting friends in Columbia, South Carolina. Democrat South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn represents the district where Logan Federico was killed.

When the Caller asked Federico if any Democratic lawmaker, including Clyburn, had reached out since his daughter’s death, he said no.

Referring to Democrat North Carolina Rep. Deborah Ross, he added, “One called my daughter the wrong name yesterday.”

I do think that it is infuriating when someone takes a course of action for social reasons – virtue signaling – and then refuses to accept responsibility for the results of their actions. In this case, Democrats took an action – being soft on criminals, and deterring self-defense – and then when the result occurred – repeat offenders committing serious crimes after being released – the Democrats don’t want to even accept that it happened. And they certainly don’t accept that they are responsible. After all, they think, how could bad results come from actions taken by someone as morally superior as myself? The moral superiority means that they should never be held accountable for any results of their actions.

Just like the Iryna case, the accused in this case had been caught and released many times:

Authorities charged Dickey with two counts of first-degree burglary in 2014, then served warrants for a third first-degree burglary charge in October, according to WIS10. The man pleaded guilty on a second-degree non-violent burglary charge and was sentenced to 10 years suspended amid probation.

Dickey faced the other two burglary counts the following year, though one was dropped. He pleaded guilty to burglary to the third-degree. Dickey pleaded guilty for the third time to third-degree burglary in 2023 after originally facing a count of violent second-degree burglary. Eleventh Circuit Court Solicitor Rick Hubbard claimed his office did not know of Dickey’s previous burglary charges and guilty pleas amid the 2023 case.

[…][Stephen Federico] noted that prison is meant to rehabilitate people but argued that Dickey never spent enough time behind bars to know if rehabilitation could have worked — noting he only served about 600 days over a decade. “I would say the odds are against career criminals ever being rehabilitated.”

There’s some must-see video of the father that has been making the rounds – a rare look at what crime is like for the victims:

In this case, the accused criminal was arrested 39 times, and had 25 felonies in his criminal record. What was he doing out on the streets? Well, you just have to consider that big problem that secular leftists have with accountability. They don’t like the idea of anyone being “punished” for their actions. That’s why they hate Christianity and the idea of a final judgment so much. And this hatred comes out in their coddling of criminals.

Dennis Prager had a memorable line that he used to say often on his radio show. He would say “If you are kind to the cruel, you will be cruel to the kind“. But that’s what the secular left believes, which is why people have to learn never to put them into power. You think you are electing people to protect you from evil, but the secular left sees it as an opportunity to deal with their own guilt by showing their great capacity for forgiveness and non-judgment. “I don’t judge” they say, and they mean that as a boast. Well, they are making that boast while risking your life. Their boast, your life.

On the weekend, I saw a really great 90-minute discussion about how feminism has affected relationships and marriage, featuring the famous Christian Zuby and Joker from Better Bachelor. Joker speaks for the standard, non-religious moderately conservative man (pro-life, opposed to LGBT activism). And Zuby is a traditional conservative who wants men to pursue women for marriage.

So, here is the video:

And Zuby even posted timestamps, so you can see what it is all about:

Timestamps:
(0:00) Trailer
(01:29) Introduction
(01:48) Joker’s background and content creation journey
(03:00) Personal experiences with marriage and divorce
(05:04) Traveling and cultural observations
(06:39) Modern dating challenges and gender dynamics
(08:24) Men’s issues and the Red Pill community
(27:13) Advice for young men and personal growth
(35:11) Global perspectives on relationships
(38:54) Conservative views and personal reflections
(52:10) Understanding marriage risks
(52:20) Nuances of marriage suitability
(54:14) Marriage and children: complexities and rewards
(54:50) Secular vs. religious views on marriage
(56:34) Men’s concerns about marriage
(57:46) The rise of traditional values
(1:00:26) Challenges in modern dating
(1:03:19) The impact of promiscuity on relationships
(1:09:01) Societal breakdown and family dynamics
(1:11:20) The role of religion and tradition
(1:14:20) Concluding thoughts on society and relationships
(1:37:29) Outro

My Dad is currently visiting me in America, and we watched this on Saturday together and had a great discussion. I lean more towards Better Bachelor than Zuby, but Zuby did a good job of accepting the situation that men find themselves in. Most pro-marriage conservatives and Christians are extremely naive about how feminism has affected the dating market, and the value proposition of marriage for men. They can’t even put the situation facing men into words, because they are so committed to tricking young men into marriage despite the risks and costs. But not Zuby. He has an accurate view of the situation facing men. He was making great points, but so was Better Bachelor. I think that people watching will find that it was a close contest, with both sides landing some pretty good points.

I was going to post this on Monday night for Tuesday, which a better day for blog traffic, but I found another (shorter) video from Sargon of Akkad, the British commentator. Sargon seems to be secular, but he definitely leans right. Anyway, he is happily married, with a stay-at-home wife. And he’s noticed that something has gone wrong with modern women. They seem to think that going after higher education, careers, wealth, travel and fun makes them more attractive to men. Actually, everything that leftist women think is good for men is actually very, very, very bad for men. Watch the video below (shorter) and see what you think. What’s so funny is how many conservative Christian parents and pastors just let their daughters slide into feminism, and never warn them about how marriage-minded men never marry feminists.

Here’s the video:

That lady in the thumbnail is “Lisa” and she is looking for a man to marry her, now that she has reached 42 years old. She lives in San Francisco, and she loves wine and cats. Also, she’s a non-religious Democrat, and she expects her high value husband to share those values. Do non-religious Democrats have the character traits for lifelong married love?

New York Post has an article about her:

The Bay Area singleton, 42, is spending cold, hard cash to rent a dozen digital billboards along California’s famed Highway 101 — advertising her hand in marriage to any commuter that’s ready for commitment.

“I’m putting myself out there,” Catalano, a vintage clothes retailer, from San Mateo, Calif., told the Post with a laugh. “People would be shocked if they knew how much this is costing me.”

Catalano, who launched her ad campaign on September 2, chose not to disclose how much the exploit has cost her over the past month.

[…]She’s also taking out ad space atop taxicabs, further promoting herself to motorists around the region.

And her LinkedIn says that she hasn’t worked since October 2024.

Do you think that a man who believes that two men can “marry” and adopt children would be good at marriage? Do you think that a man who believes that murder is a good way to resolve reckless, hedonistic sex would be good at marriage? Lisa does. Lisa thinks that immoral men make GREAT husbands. Feminism teaches women to oppose traditional male character and roles, and just go for tall, hot and non-judgmental men.

Anyway, I realize that the first video is pretty long, but just watch it over two 45 minute workouts. The last one is shorter, but you can just listen to it while sweeping, vacuuming or mowing. I really enjoyed them, and I’m glad that we are getting more controlled, moderate voices to make the case about why Christians should be more opposed to feminism. You can either have feminism, or you can have marriage. You can’t have both.