Josh Benner

Category: Culture

  • Christian comedian break silence 8 months after sexual misconduct scandal

    Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

    After an eight month hiatus from the public eye, popular millennial Christian comedian broke his silence through social media on Wednesday. Last November, Charisma News broke a story detailing numerous allegations of sexual misconduct carried out by Crist.

    Before the sexual misconduct scandal, Crist had amassed millions of followers online, had a popular standup tour, was a few weeks ago from the release of a Netflix comedy special. He had become a social media sensation among evangelical millennials for poking fun at the Christian subculture.

    Crist notes the overwhelming support he’s received from fans.

    With a scandal of personal sin, I feel like there are two primaries camps where Christians find themselves. And I think that this is interesting, not just because of Crist, but because it’s a microcosm of how we view sin. 

    On the one hand, you have the cheap grace crowd. When this scandal first came to light, I remember seeing posts online which totally overlooked the severity of what Crist had done and said things like “no one is perfect,” “well all make mistakes,” “Christians aren’t supposed to judge,” “I guess you must be perfect.” 

    For this group, there’s no real need for repentance or transformation. Christians often get painted as being too judgmental and critical. I actually think a larger issue in Christendom is that we’re often too dismissive of sin and quick to excuse it away under the guise of grace. 

    But that overlooks the victims. Crist was a predator who used his fame to exploit women. That’s a truly terrible thing for a person to do. I’m not suggesting that Crist is irredeemable. That’s the good news of the gospel. No matter what a person does, no matter what sin a person commits, there can be grace through Christ and what he has done. But we can’t mitigate sin itself.

    When Crist’s misconduct came to light last November, he said at the time:

    “While I am not guilty of everything I’ve been accused of, I confess to being guilty of this—I have treated relationships with women far too casually, in some cases even recklessly. My behavior has been destructive and sinful. I’ve sinned against God, against women and the people who I love the most. I have violated my own Christian beliefs, convictions and values, and have hurt many people in the process. I am sorry for the hurt and pain I have caused these women and will continue to seek their forgiveness. I have also hurt the name of Jesus and have sought His forgiveness. Over several recent years, I have privately sought and received regular professional treatment for my sexual sin and addiction struggles.”

    Another camp that people can fall into is being cynical. Not believing that he’s truly repented and that he’s working to change. This view is also dangerous. All are sinful and need to repent and to turn to Christ.

    The reason why it’s easy to be cynical is that people so often let us down and fall. It’s easy to be cynical because much of our society is cynical. We paint in broad brush strokes. We judge people from the past based on the values of today. If a person commits a sin in the eyes of the popular culture, the mob comes after them. It seeks to bring punishment instead of forgiveness. The mob seeks to punish, to tear people down, to assume the worst. Christians can be tempted to fall into this too.

    I think that the appropriate response is in the middle. Yes, there is grace and we should rejoice in that. But talk is cheap. True repentance and true faith bear fruit. So I think we should take a person at their word when they apologize and seek help and seek to change. But we should also expect to see the fruit of that in their life.

    To specifically critique today’s statement from Crist, I wish he would have more specifically called his actions “sin,” and talked about repentance and dependence on his faith. In many ways, I think his initial statement was better than what he said in his video. I also would have liked to have seen him specifically apologize for what he did instead of vaguely referring to “a lot of poor choices in my personal life” which “hurt myself, that hurt other people, and embarrassed myself.”

    Crist goes on to say “the most embarrassing part of this whole thing is the biggest hypocrite was me.” I can think of more embarrassing aspects of this scandal.

    I’ve been a fan of Crist for a few years. One of the first dates my wife and I went on after getting married was seeing hi perform stand up. It’s truly my hope that he has changed.

    Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to like and subscribe!

  • What wisdom has to do with struggles

    It’s In the opening chapter of the Letter of James, in talking about the trials we face, James says: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).

    What does wisdom have to do with trials?

    God gives us wisdom to trust in him in the face of trials.When we’re in trials, the onus isn’t on us to figure it all out on our own, to understand all that’s going on.

    We aren’t called to have the answer for all of our trials and struggles. We are to consider and to count it joy when we are in trials because of the work that God is doing. But seeing his purposes, seeing God in the struggles, for that, we do need wisdom.

    There are numerous Proverbs that talk about God granting wisdom. Proverbs 2:6 says “The Lord gives wisdom.” He points us to his promises, his goodness, his salvation. He can point us to the hope that is found in the gospel and grant a peace that surpasses all understanding.

    James continues in verse 6: But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

    I used to live in Minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes. The water and waves are constantly changing, even through the course of a day. Sometimes the waters can be very calm and still. On a day when there’s no wind, it’s incredible how still the water is. It’s like a mirror. Other times the water is really choppy. And the imagery of waves that James is using: to be walking in doubt, constantly varying and changing. One moment walking in faith, the next moment doubting God’s goodness, or his plan, or his existence. The winds of situations blowing us too and fro, totally out of control in our faith, totally depending on conditions instead of cultivating an internal relationship and pursuit of God.

    AND WE SEE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN VERSES 7 AND 8:

    FOR THAT PERSON MUST NOT SUPPOSE THAT HE WILL RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM THE LORD; HE IS A DOUBLE-MINDED MAN, UNSTABLE IN ALL HIS WAYS.

    James says that the person who’s doubting is like a wave of the sea, and here that person is called double-minded. Trusting God, not trusting God. Trusting God, not trusting God. Trust, no trust, trust, no trust.

    We are following God or we are not. If we keep jumping between trust and doubt, we can’t expect to grow in wisdom or an insights of our situations.

    The point isn’t that the slightest feeling of doubt ever means that God is not going to respond or be there. But if doubting and failing to trust God is a way of life, and just part of our outlook whenever things aren’t going exactly as we want them to go, there’s no blessing in that. And through a trial, there can be ebbs and flows of emotion. We might thrash at first, but when we’ve had some time, to know that God is at work. Trusting in God needs to be our general disposition

    So when we face trials, we are able to turn to God to seek wisdom, through faith without doubting. When we turn to God in doubt, then we are doubting his goodness. Again, God’s purpose is not to give us a life totally free from any difficulty. We will have that one day, but he is growing us in holiness until that time.

    This actual trust is what separates the men from the boys, when it comes to faith. K.A. Richardson talks about how there is no middle ground between faith and unbelief. We aren’t called to be double minded but to be single minded and totally focused on God.

    We trust God in struggles and that trust is part of what helps us grow in faith.

    But our overall disposition when we come to God needs to be to trust him. Not to be wishy washy, one week trusting in God, but keeping him on a short leash if we don’t get the immediate result we want, or the answer we want, to the relief we want. But even in spite of confusion, even when things don’t make sense, to keep on turning to God and looking to God.

    Maybe you’re in a tough place with work right now. Your boss doesn’t seem to appreciate you. You’re overdue for a promotion, but it’s where God has you now. In that trial, in that period of frustration, to turn to God.

    Trials are opportunities where we can grow with God or turn from God. Trials are situations where we can grow in holiness or fall into sin, depending on the choices we make.

    Turning to God in wisdom of how to live, and wisdom of how to approach life, and the wisdom to recognize that God is good, always. And while trials and seasons are not always what we want, they are always intended for good.

    We need to be intentional about staying in faith, not being moved by the current of life. Not being double minded, playing both sides with God, but having a steadfast trust in what God is doing in our life.

    Originally published December 5, 2016

    Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to share and subscribe!

  • Megachurches, televangelists among churches who received loan money

    Megachurches, televangelists among churches who received loan money

    American Catholic Churches received roughly $1.4 billion dollars in government bailout money as part of . Megachurches like Chicago’s Willow Creek and Harvest Bible Chapel, First Baptist Church of Dallas, and Life.church from Oklahoma all received millions of dollars. Televangelists like Joyce Meyer, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart also received federal money.

    Theologically, I have issues with churches taking federal loans for several reasons. It sets a bad precedent. I don’t think a church should depend on federal money to operate. Yes, this is an extreme situation and all sorts of private businesses also received loan money to help protect employees. Churches should have some money already in savings for an emergency situation. Also, people were still able to financially give money to their churches during the pandemic. But this is also the fault of the government for making loan money available to churches. Of course there would be churches who would take the money.

    Over 10,000 churches and religious organizations received funds in the paycheck protection program.

    Some of the Catholic dioceses who are receiving money had previously had to pay out settlements in the wake of sexual abuse scandals. Churches like Willow Creek and Harvest have both been rocked by scandals as Willow’s pastor stepped down amid sexual misconduct allegations in 2018 and Harvest fired their pastor in 2019 in the wake of vitriolic comments coming to light when he was already on leave due to various allegations of ministerial abuses. For those churches, it strikes me similarly to bankrupt states wanting federal bailouts for issues that existed long before covid.

    For televangelists who received money, many of them live lavishly. Jim Bakker who went to prison for fraud associated with his ministry in the 1980s was sued earlier during the Coronavirus outbreak for selling a bogus “cure” for the disease. His church took hundreds of thousands in loan money. Televangelist Joyce Meyer is worth millions of dollars and her ministry reported having $12 million at the end of last year but received between $5-10 million in the federal loan. Again, I blame the government for giving that money just as much as I blame these huge ministries for receiving it.

    Yes, it should be understood that the vast majority of churches who received money are not megachurches and do not have scandals. I have no doubt that some really were in need of help.

    But I also feel like this undermines the spiritual issues of churches and funding. If a church cannot afford to operate, either their members are not supporting the ministry of the church, which is an issue a church needs to address; or it means that a church is trying to do too many things. But the answer should not be federal loan programs, pandemic or not.

    Thanks for reading! Please like, comment, share, and subscribe.

  • New York Times blames churches for being “major source” of Covid cases

    The New York Times ran an article today under the headline: “Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are a Major Source of Coronavirus Cases.”

    If you had just read the headline, that sounds like a pretty severe indictment. The article goes on to say that more than 650 cases of Coronavirus have been linked to churches. Not 650 a day. There were 60,000 cases today. Not 650 this week, or since Memorial Day. But 650 cases since the beginning of Coronavirus.

    More than 3 million Americans have been diagnosed with the virus.

    It’s misleading to say that around .02 percent of cases being linked to churches means that churches are a “major source.”

    The anti-intellectual contortions the mainstream media has done over the past few weeks is truly incredible. CNN, NBC, Forbes, the Associated Press, and numerous other news sources have all argued that attending protest rallied did not lead to increased numbers of cases. But if you want to go to church, or a beach, that’s a major contributor. States like New York that had tremendous loss of life did a wonderful job of handling the virus. States like Florida and Texas who are seeing large increases in cases are reckless and their governors are to blame.

    It’s all political.

    The Times article says: “Weeks after President Trump demanded that America’s shuttered houses of worship be allowed to reopen, new outbreaks of the coronavirus are surging through churches across the country where services have resumed.”

    And that’s really the heart of the piece. President Trump had pushed for governors to lift restrictions on churches and now a few cases can be linked to churches, so the Times can go after Trump and also publish propaganda about churches being a “major source” of the spread of the virus.

    Thanks for reading! Please comment, like, and subscribe.

  • The virtue signal of all virtue signals: liberals compare themselves to heroes of all past generations

    Last week, legal scholar and philosopher Robert George had a thought-provoking series of Tweets on how people today would have responded to historical events had they lived through them.  

    George says: 

    “I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it. Of course, this is nonsense. Only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves. Most of them—and us—would have gone along. Many would have supported the slave system and happily benefited from it.”

    It’s easy to look back at history and assume we would have been righteous. There’s a meme I’ve seen on online that says “If you’ve ever wondered what you’d do during slavery, the Holocaust, or civil rights movement, you’re doing it right now.” 

    Here’s a key difference for the social justice warriors of today. The popular culture supports you. There’s no pressure, or risk, or persecution to protest or be a social media activist. The media supports you, Hollywood supports you, athletes support you, academia supports you, and big corporations support you.  

    People want to compare this to the Civil Rights movement. Many of the protests and sit-ins were unpopular in public opinion from that era. The movement came at a cost. Where’s the cost in sharing a meme?

    To quote again from George, he gives a good ethical test for how we would have truly responded in previous eras: 

    I respond by saying that I will credit their claims if they can show evidence of the following: that in leading their lives today they have stood up for the rights of unpopular victims of injustice whose very humanity is denied, and where they have done so knowing: 

    (1) that it would make them unpopular with their peers, (2) that they would be loathed and ridiculed by powerful, influential individuals and institutions in our society; (3) that they would be abandoned by many of their friends, (4) that they would be called nasty names, and (5) that they would risk being denied valuable professional opportunities as a result of their moral witness. In short, my challenge is to show where they have at risk to themselves and their futures stood up for a cause that is unpopular in elite sectors of our culture today.

    This is an important distinction. When we act like we would have been leading the charge in previous eras, when we want to say that we would have been virtuous in previous eras, we need to consider the context of that time and the cost of our beliefs. Because there’s little real cost in the current climate. For instance, when people want to talk about this as being similar to how they would have responded to the Holocaust consider that during the Holocaust and the Third Reich, almost 80,000 Germans were executed for being part of the resistance. People paid the ultimate price to stand up against Hitler. Where’s the cost in a hashtag?  

    People want to compare this to how they would have responded in the Civil War. 360,000 soldiers died for the Union. That was roughly one percent of the entire U.S. population at the time. Men paid the ultimate price to preserve our nation and end slavery. Where’s the cost in telling people a bunch of books they should read or in watching a documentary?  

    People want to compare this to the Civil Rights movement. Many of the protests and sit-ins were unpopular in public opinion from that era. The movement came at a cost. Where’s the cost in sharing a meme?  

    In the civil rights movement, they protested against actual systemic racism. Today social justice warriors fight against inequality which they say is the result of current systematic racism, and there are people who want to compare the two eras as being moral equivalents. 

    When people want to compare their efforts today to past social movements, it’s showing an ignorance of history and it’s also showing delusions of grandeur. Progressives like to believe that everyone is immoral except for them and that they would have been righteous at all times.  

    We judge people form the past because they don’t adhere to our current standards. And when I say current, I mean that literally. Current as in today because the standards of progressivism are an ever-moving target. There weren’t serious efforts to defund, or dismantle, or destroy the police a year ago. There weren’t major popular efforts to tear down monuments five years ago. There was not a major war on our history ten years ago. But progressives continue to shift their values and they fight a culture war where there is no grace or redemption given to past people who did not perfectly adhere to these standards of today while progressives allow themselves to continue changing what matters and what’s right.

    Thanks for reading! For more posts, don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe!