Published on February 5, 2024, 1:01 am

In an unsettling development within the church, tackling the complex landscape of politics and faith has become a contentious topic. The creators of a new curriculum, “The After Party,” claim their intention is to guide churches and Christians on how to navigate political discussions without escalating disputes. Unfortunately, critics argue that this initiative contributes to muddying Christian values rather than clarifying them.

The pioneers behind this contentious project are Russell Moore, ex-head of ERLC; David French, a prominent leftist columnist; and Curtis Chang. Chang has been noted for his controversial comment implying that a COVID vaccine somehow redeems abortion.

Critics claim these figures represent the challenges the modern Church faces – capitulating often to progressive notions blatantly contradicting Christian beliefs. For instance, they surprisingly hailed Charlie Dates—in an episode featuring other contributors—as an exemplary leader in Christianity. However, critics have pointed out Dates’ reputation as being politically biased due to his polarizing views on social justice within Evangelical circles.

Allegations further escalate towards ‘the trio’, labeling them as circus performers who use faith-oriented dialogue solely for spectacle. Detractors argue that their curriculum leads believers away from seeking God’s perspective on political matters through scriptural guidance. They accuse them of abandoning clear Scriptural insights on relevant issues and replacing it with confusion and compromise that dilutes the Gospel they claim to uphold.

Moreover, critics condemn Curtis Change’s admission concerning the curriculum design enabling pastors to sidestep controversial discussions entirely in their sermons—a tactic he refers to as providing pastors with “plausible deniability”. This approach arguably allows clergy members to avoid taking firm stances on critical political or societal issues.

The After Party’s aim was supposedly devised to reduce pastors’ fear of controversy by transferring political teachings from pulpits towards smaller group discussions—an intention interpreted by opponents as directly counterproductive towards pastoral responsibilities.

This breaking news further exposes growing concern regarding leaders deviating from foundational Christian doctrines while still claiming to promote a Christian worldview. This trend substantiates the need to consume trusted news, affirming the relevance of real news outlets aiding believers in discerning scriptural truths from personal interpretations.

To adhere faithfully with church leadership’s contextual role—likened metaphorically as shepherding followers—critics advise Christians against handing their politics over to such guides. They urge them to leave and find an alternative place of worship if their current ones follow “The After Party” advice.

This disturbing narrative chips away at the very bedrock of Christianity—trusting in Scripture’s timeless wisdom and truth. It serves as a crucial reminder for every believer to stay grounded in their faith, equipped with discernment in deciphering genuine doctrine from misguided teachings camouflaged as progressive ideologies within Christian discourse.