I remember my visit to Beijing’s massive Tiananmen Square some years ago as if it were yesterday. The area is named for a gate in the wall of the Imperial City built in 1417; the square was built in 1651 and enlarged fourfold in the 1950s. It is intended to impress visitors with its size (it measures more than fifty-three acres) and thus with the grandeur and power of the Chinese ruling dynasty.

Its political purpose was tested as never before, however, when nearly a million protesters crowded into central Beijing in May 1989 to call for greater democracy. Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the day when Chinese troops and security police stormed through the square, firing into the crowds. Perhaps thousands were killed; as many as ten thousand were arrested.

What kind of government fires on its own citizens?

The kind that violated maritime laws in the Taiwan Strait two days ago in what US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called an act of “coercion and bullying.” The incident marked the second major provocation by China’s military in the span of a week.

The kind that props up North Korea as it continues to develop nuclear warheads that, according to its latest claims, could be capable of striking South Korea and Japan. The kind that supports Russia’s immoral war in Ukraine with economic aid and military technology. And the kind that serves as Iran’s largest trade partner as the latter moves closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than ever before.

“You are not destined to live in quiet times”

Imagine a future in which three nuclear-armed powers (along with a fourth if Iran fulfills its nuclear ambitions) are aligned against the West. Add the warning last week from technology experts that artificial intelligence could lead to the extinction of humanity. And the partisan political divisions that are deeper and more vitriolic than they have been in decades.

The fact is, as Walter Russell Mead recently noted, “You are not destined to live in quiet times.”

Mead is the Global View Columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a Strategy and Statesmanship fellow at Hudson Institute, and a foreign affairs and humanities professor at Bard College. In my view, he is one of the most perceptive geopolitical analysts working today.

One factor he identifies in “making sense of our times” is the widening gap between technological advances and cultural values. Mead writes: “Our political parties and institutions took shape long before the internet and social media existed. Our government bureaucracies, our schools, and our legal system were all built for conditions that no longer exist. . . . Many of our political ideas and ideological assumptions also reflect the conditions of an earlier era.

“If society’s operating system is running on the equivalent of a long-outdated version of Windows, that makes real reform difficult to imagine, and harder still to carry out.”

Mead concludes: “While the ever-accelerating and ascending wave of human progress has brought us to peaks of achievement and affluence that our ancestors could scarcely imagine, it has both failed to keep us safe from the most dangerous predators of all and—to the degree that the rate of progress has become a major force of destabilization—progress itself may now be the greatest source of danger humans face.”

A culture at a crossroads

As China’s autocratic dictatorship widens its influence and enforces its will on more and more of the world, we are seeing Mead’s thesis in action. A government bereft of biblical or even objective morality, one that exists solely to protect its leaders and advance its national interests even at the expense of its own citizens, shows us what happens when technological progress outstrips moral boundaries.

As America moves further and further from biblical morality and objective truth, we are illustrating the same warning culturally and spiritually: “Progress itself may now be the greatest source of danger humans face.”

Our “progress” with human sexuality is destroying families through adultery, damaging minds through pornography, and deceiving generations of impressionable children and teens through LGBTQ ideology. Our “progress” with artificial intelligence is, in the view of many experts, threatening our future as a civilization. Our “progress” with information technology is enabling us to consume only the political perspectives with which we agree while demonizing our political opponents.

At such a crossroads, you and I hold the only hope for a flourishing and redemptive future.

The choice that defines our future

Perhaps Tim Keller’s most famous quote was his observation, “The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.”

I invite you to embrace and proclaim the two biblical facts Dr. Keller noted.

One: Humans are so “sinful and flawed” that we have no assurance of a better future of our own making. Left to our own devices, we invent nuclear technology that powers cities but also destroys them. We create innovations that improve our lives immeasurably but also threaten our survival as a species. And, whatever our particular experiences with these realities, we will all die one day (if the Lord tarries) and face eternity.

Two: Humans are so “loved and accepted in Jesus Christ” that, when we put our hope in him, he is “able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us” (Ephesians 3:20). When we make Christ the king of our lives and encourage everyone we know to do the same, our future is as bright as his omnipotent love.

Our choice between these two realities defines our future as a nation and as individuals.

Choose wisely today.

Denison Forum

Chick-fil-A made news again this week—complete with calls to boycott the fast-food chain—in response to ire over the company’s stance on diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI). Of course, Chick-fil-A is no stranger to such controversy, but this time it came from those who have typically been on the other side of the outrage.

The company’s DEI policy garnered attention on Twitter and quickly went viral from those who assumed that it pushes similar “woke” policies to those often denounced by conservatives. Erick McReynolds, the company’s vice president of DEI, was a focal point of the controversy, though more for the existence of his position than for anything he said or did.

Calls for Chick-fil-A boycott due to DEI policy

McReynolds has previously stated that DEI is crucial to the company’s purpose, noting that “Chick-fil-A restaurants have long been recognized as a place where people know they will be treated well. Modeling care for others starts in the restaurant, and we are committed to ensuring mutual respect, understanding and dignity everywhere we do business.”

What’s most peculiar about the recent outrage, however, is that there is nothing new about Chick-fil-A’s stance. Their DEI policies date back to 2020 and do little more than formalize their long-held position that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, physical condition, or a host of other descriptors.

That approach is good for business, good for the gospel, and also what every company is required by law to do when it comes to hiring staff and serving customers.

Still, given the degree to which people on both sides of the “woke” agenda have their antennas raised this time of year, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that it would not take much to make conservatives fear the worst with regards to what has been lovingly described as “God’s chicken,” particularly when a more legitimate concern has been raised with another fan-favorite in recent days.

Controversy on The Chosen set

When the producers of The Chosen recently released a promo for season four, they likely expected that it would generate buzz for the show. But though the video has certainly done that, it’s perhaps not the kind of attention for which they’d hoped.

A small rainbow flag appears in the background of the set for roughly four seconds, and while it’s barely visible unless you’re looking for it, it did not escape public notice for long.

Conservative commentator Jon Root then tweeted a screenshot of the flag to The Chosen‘s official account, asking, “Can you explain why there’s a Pride flag on set?”

In response, the show stated that “just like with our hundreds of cast and crew who have different beliefs (or no beliefs at all) than we do, we will work with anyone on our show who helps us portray or honor the authentic Jesus. We ask that audiences let the show speak for itself and focus on the message, not the messenger, because we’ll always let you down.”

Given the ensuing controversy, it seems clear that many of the show’s fans did indeed feel let down.

In the days since, the show’s creator and director, Dallas Jenkins, has doubled down on the response, stating, “We’ve made no secret our cast and crew come from all different beliefs and backgrounds. I don’t believe personal workspaces on set are relevant to the content of The Chosen, but if someone wants to stop watching a free show because of it, it’s their right.”

While Jenkins has been consistent in that approach from the beginning, and labor laws would prevent him from doing otherwise even if he wanted to, calls to boycott the show have become an increasingly popular refrain among a segment of those who used to be among its greatest supporters.

Jenkins is correct that people have the right to stop watching because of the pride flag’s brief appearance and, more particularly, the defense of its presence by the show’s cast and crew. But should they? Is boycotting a show that has, by all accounts, done an excellent job of introducing people to Jesus in a way that is both authentic and compelling really the best response to the present controversy?

I’m not so sure.

If you’re considering boycotting

My purpose today is not to tell you whether or not it is appropriate to boycott The Chosen, Chick-fil-A, or any other institution with whom you might have a grievance, even if that grievance is legitimate.

Rather, it’s to encourage you to let God be part of that decision.

In today’s culture, both Christians and non-Christians alike tend to confuse emotional responses for reasonable ones. Perhaps that was inevitable given the growing emphasis on the legitimacy of personal truth over objective truth, but it doesn’t make the resulting decisions any less harmful.

Even when we can find a biblical basis for our choices, we should not take for granted that the resulting decision is automatically correct. After all, one of Satan’s favorite strategies—even when confronting the Son of God (Luke 4:1–13)—is to twist God’s word to justify actions that go against God’s will.

If you saw the pride flag on the set of The Chosen and your immediate response was a mixture of disappointment and anger, that’s understandable. But just because those initial emotions were justifiable in that case does not automatically mean they form a solid foundation for how we should respond.

So the next time you are tempted to condemn a business, person, or organization for taking a position that goes against biblical truth, commit to spending at least as much time praying about how to respond as you are willing to spend actually responding.

Ultimately, Satan doesn’t care if you take the right position on an issue so long as you do so in the wrong way. That’s why we need God’s help not only in discerning the truth but also in knowing how to stand up for it.

Will you ask for his help today?

Denison Forum