Breakpoint

If the last two Presidential elections, the last midterm elections, and every exit poll ever conducted can teach us anything, it's to not put too much faith in polling. Still, a new Gallup poll released last month deserves a serious look. In a remarkable jump from prior years, one in six adult members of Gen Z (that is, ages 18 to 24) self-identify as LGBT.

The first thing to unpack is the definition of terms; specifically, what does it mean to identify as LGBT? The disconnection of biological reality from one's identity makes this question particularly complicated. Is merely conceiving of oneself as "LGBT" enough, or must on claim it, or advertise for it, or "outwardly present" in a way consistent with cultural stereotypes? Does identifying as an "L," "G," or "B" imply these 18 to 24-year-olds have engaged in homosexual behavior? Does being attracted to members of the same sex qualify as behavior? Or, does any sexual encounter with someone of the same sex mean they must identify as gay? The answers to these questions aren't clear.

The fact is, in addition to those who experience same-sex attraction and struggle with gender dysphoria, calling oneself LGBT has become a sort of Cool Club for the disenfranchised. I've personally heard from high school guidance counselors, teachers, youth pastors, and others that many kids who struggle socially, or with depression, or with fitting in, now claim to be homosexual or transgender. In other words, it's entirely plausible, even likely, that more young adults identify as LGBT because the terms are not clear and because they're unhappy.

Still, the ones who've made this acronym the new Cool Club are the adults, not the kids. To resurrect words from the early days of this issue, this is nurture, not nature. Now, to be clear, many of the most vocal advocates of the new sexual orthodoxy admitted years ago that the "born this way" narrative was useful, not really true. Now that the debate has largely been settled, at least culturally, there's no need to hold anyone to a fixed orientation or identity.

Of course, Christians are typically accused of denying the "spectrum of sexuality," the idea that sexual urges may ebb and flow throughout a lifetime towards members of the same or the opposite sex. However, both Old and New Testament Scriptures take the idea that sexual attractions can change, both in intensity and direction, largely for granted. One way to describe the Biblical view, to quote G.K. Chesterton, is "there are a lot of ways to fall down, but only one way to stand up straight."

Today, however, the various spectrums of sexuality (and there are at least four taught to elementary school age children) have nothing to do with moral or natural guidelines for our sexual impulses. Rather, those impulses are equated with identity, which is also seen as fluid. Though their impulses may change, children are taught that they have no power over their impulses and that to deny them is to deny themselves.

They are, in fact, taught to be slaves to their desires, even if those desires lead them to misery or harm. In this context, Christianity's greatest news may be that humans actually have freedom to navigate our desires. We are not mere creatures of instinct and, in Christ, can be made free indeed.

Another crucial component to make sense of this Gallup poll is a larger cultural observation: we don't know what love is. The adult Gen Z-ers highlighted in this survey have been raised in an environment offering only two bad understandings of love. For some, every time they've heard the word "love" used in their entire life, including within the Church, it's been in either a shallow and sentimental sense or in a sexual sense.

Imagine never hearing that relationship between love and God's moral character, but only of a squishy, sentimental figure who has no strong feelings about anything except our happiness. Imagine never understanding Who God is or His created intent for His world, but then trying to make sense of relationships. In reality, one of the consequences of divorcing love from its only real Source is that sexual love has been disconnected from the physical bodies He gave His image bearers. In turn, sexual acts, sexual morality, and sexual impulses are left completely up in the air.

Among the The Four Loves identified in his classic book (storge, or affection; phileo, or friendship), eros, or sexual love, and agape, or sacrificial love), C.S. Lewis thought true friendship had become the rarest. Recent data backs him up. At least part of the crisis of absolutizing sexual deviancy, is that young adults lose the ability to even conceive of true friendship. In fact, the vast majority of people who claim to be LGBT in the Gallup poll identify as bisexual. How many simply lack categories for true, affectionate, loving, and yet non-erotic, relationships?

At the same time, trying to disconnect from our design is like trying to disconnect from gravity. Reality eventually wins. This means that Christians have actual good news to offer a culture helplessly obsessed with but thoroughly confused about sex. We can offer a love that reorients and transforms sexual impulse (eros), a love that orders friendship and affection (phileo and storge), and a love sacrificial and self-giving (agape). In the process, image bearers can find their true identity as created, loved, and redeemed by God.

In just the last few weeks, two mass kidnappings took place, both at schools in northwestern Nigeria. In the first, "unidentified gunmen" attacked a boarding school in Niger state, killing one student and kidnapped 42 others -- 38 of the abducted were rescued a week later, presumably by government forces. The day before that rescue, "unknown gunmen" in neighboring Zamfara state kidnapped over 300 girls from a boarding school. On Tuesday, the AP reported the release of 270.

It's not clear whether the kidnappings were driven by ideology or ransom money, though the motive doesn't make much of a difference to the girls and their families. Not to mention, in places like northwestern Nigeria, ideology and profit are not mutually exclusive motives. When hostages are released by Boko Haram or other extremists, it's almost always because some ransom has been paid. Regardless of motivation, the average Nigerian (especially the average Nigerian Christian) lives in constant threat for his personal safety.

Nigeria's inability to guarantee the basic safety of its citizens has observers now asking whether it is on the verge of becoming a "failed state," the official term for a state "where the government is no longer in control." The label is most often applied to countries such as Yemen or Somalia, where basic institutions are virtually non-existent.

At least when it comes to protecting the Christian population and institutions, Nigeria's government hardly seems in control. Because groups like Boko Haram and Fulani militants operate with a de facto immunity in Nigera, their actions against Christians are given a de facto legitimacy. If the government's blind eye is not intentional, it's fair to ask whether its authority even extends beyond Abuja, Nigeria's capital city.

German sociologist Max Weber famously defined a state as a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Using that most basic standard, Nigeria is failing. Groups like ICON have documented the violence in the northern part of the country, where Christians are killed, wounded, assaulted, and abducted with regularity by Boko Haram and Fulani militants.

Nigeria is not the only country on the "World Watch List" for Christian persecution that is also characterized as a "fragile" or "failed" state. Seven of the top ten countries on the Open Doors list also rank high on the "Fragile States Index" list produced by the Fund for Peace. Nigeria ranks ninth on the World Watch List and ranks fourteenth on the Fragile States Index.

This pattern makes both political and biblical sense. A state that cannot effectively restrain or punish perpetrators of violence is in no position to protect the religious freedom of its citizens. As the Apostle Paul told the Romans, government is "instituted by God" to "execute wrath on the wrongdoer." Thus, we are to obey the government, including paying our taxes, not because the government is morally praiseworthy (Rome certainly wasn't), but because of its God-ordained role in keeping the peace.

Paul also urged Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectable in every way."

Around the world, many of our brothers and sisters don't even have the option of living the kind of "quiet and peaceable" lives we take for granted. Still, so many manage to live in a godly and dignified way, which is a powerful testimony to the legitimacy and vitality of their faith.

As we pray for persecuted Christians in Nigeria and elsewhere, we should also pray for the stability of their nations, and even for their government leaders. We should pray that they would have the courage and capacity to end insurgencies like Boko Haram, and, whenever possible, we should ask our nation and its leaders to intervene, or at least assist, in squelching the chaos. Without national stability, our brothers and sisters around the world are kind of like sitting ducks, at the mercy of those who would wish to do them harm, and they have no hope of living "quiet and peaceable" lives.

In just the last few weeks, two mass kidnappings took place, both at schools in northwestern Nigeria. In the first, "unidentified gunmen" attacked a boarding school in Niger state, killing one student and kidnapped 42 others -- 38 of the abducted were rescued a week later, presumably by government forces. The day before that rescue, "unknown gunmen" in neighboring Zamfara state kidnapped over 300 girls from a boarding school. On Tuesday, the AP reported the release of 270.

It's not clear whether the kidnappings were driven by ideology or ransom money, though the motive doesn't make much of a difference to the girls and their families. Not to mention, in places like northwestern Nigeria, ideology and profit are not mutually exclusive motives. When hostages are released by Boko Haram or other extremists, it's almost always because some ransom has been paid. Regardless of motivation, the average Nigerian (especially the average Nigerian Christian) lives in constant threat for his personal safety.

Nigeria's inability to guarantee the basic safety of its citizens has observers now asking whether it is on the verge of becoming a "failed state," the official term for a state "where the government is no longer in control." The label is most often applied to countries such as Yemen or Somalia, where basic institutions are virtually non-existent.

At least when it comes to protecting the Christian population and institutions, Nigeria's government hardly seems in control. Because groups like Boko Haram and Fulani militants operate with a de facto immunity in Nigera, their actions against Christians are given a de facto legitimacy. If the government's blind eye is not intentional, it's fair to ask whether its authority even extends beyond Abuja, Nigeria's capital city.

German sociologist Max Weber famously defined a state as a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Using that most basic standard, Nigeria is failing. Groups like ICON have documented the violence in the northern part of the country, where Christians are killed, wounded, assaulted, and abducted with regularity by Boko Haram and Fulani militants.

Nigeria is not the only country on the "World Watch List" for Christian persecution that is also characterized as a "fragile" or "failed" state. Seven of the top ten countries on the Open Doors list also rank high on the "Fragile States Index" list produced by the Fund for Peace. Nigeria ranks ninth on the World Watch List and ranks fourteenth on the Fragile States Index.

This pattern makes both political and biblical sense. A state that cannot effectively restrain or punish perpetrators of violence is in no position to protect the religious freedom of its citizens. As the Apostle Paul told the Romans, government is "instituted by God" to "execute wrath on the wrongdoer." Thus, we are to obey the government, including paying our taxes, not because the government is morally praiseworthy (Rome certainly wasn't), but because of its God-ordained role in keeping the peace.

Paul also urged Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectable in every way."

Around the world, many of our brothers and sisters don't even have the option of living the kind of "quiet and peaceable" lives we take for granted. Still, so many manage to live in a godly and dignified way, which is a powerful testimony to the legitimacy and vitality of their faith.

As we pray for persecuted Christians in Nigeria and elsewhere, we should also pray for the stability of their nations, and even for their government leaders. We should pray that they would have the courage and capacity to end insurgencies like Boko Haram, and, whenever possible, we should ask our nation and its leaders to intervene, or at least assist, in squelching the chaos. Without national stability, our brothers and sisters around the world are kind of like sitting ducks, at the mercy of those who would wish to do them harm, and they have no hope of living "quiet and peaceable" lives.

John and Shane field a question from a woman who is questioning her motivation to adopt as a single woman. She asks the two if her desire to adopt is to fill a "child-shaped hole" in her heart, or if she is really concerned with the betterment of their life. Additionally, she cites statistics related to children growing up without a father. She asks if it is best for her to pursue an adoption.

John and Shane also field a question from a mother regarding best practices in addressing cancel culture. She references the move to take down monuments of flawed men. Her question is how to best equip her daughters to participate lovingly in the conversation.

John and Shane begin the question and answer time working through a critique on their posture with young people leaving the church. A similar question asked for resources to equip young people to remain connected to the church.

On a cultural level, COVID-19 did not create as many problems and challenges as it revealed and escalated. Like the medical co-morbidities that made the virus more dangerous and more deadly for individuals, cultural pre-existing conditions only worsened during the pandemic. Social distancing and lockdowns, for example, made our pre-existing cultural problem of loneliness that much worse for many.

In the same way, the general, widespread disregard for the those with intellectual disabilities in our culture made their mistreatment during the pandemic easier as well. For example, during the first wave of the pandemic in Great Britain, various facilities that care for people with intellectual disabilities, what the Brits call "learning disabilities" issued blanket "Do Not Resuscitate" orders. These orders came, according to one source, directly from doctors, without consulting the patients or their families.

In December, following public outcry, Britain's Care Quality Commission investigated and found that the orders were, in their words, "inappropriate" and should be rescinded. That was not, however, the end of the problem.

According to the Guardian newspaper, people with intellectual disabilities such as Down syndrome continue to be told that they will not be resuscitated if they become ill with COVID. This despite last year's public outcry and the Commission's report and instructions. Also, given that "people with [intellectual] disabilities aged 18 to 34 are 30 times more likely to die of COVID than others the same age," a Do Not Resuscitate Order is a practically a death sentence.

This horrific practice has nothing to do with medicine. DNR's are usually reserved for people too frail to benefit from CPR, which is not the case here. As one advocacy group told the Guardian, "some [orders] seem to have been issued for people simply because they had [an intellectual] disability."

Why single out people with intellectual disabilities? The immediate answer is obvious. The doctors issuing these orders are eugenicists, willing to eliminate patients who, they think, drain resources. The larger answer is also obvious. Embedded in Western culture is a tendency to commodify human life, valuing people based on extrinsic abilities and appearances. Thus, the disabled are not deemed as valuable as the non-disabled.

In the U.K., this thinking is obvious in other ways, too. For example, a positive Down syndrome in utero test results in an abortion 90 percent of the time. Attempting to "explain away" this terrible number by noting that not all pregnant women are tested for trisomy 21 does not change the awful, inconvenient fact: when a British woman is told her unborn child has Down syndrome, she is nine times more likely to kill the child than to keep it.

To be clear, in this respect, Britain is a typical Western nation. In countries like Iceland and Denmark, the percentage of abortions following positive test is nearly 100 percent. In addition, the Danish and Icelandic governments have made prenatal testing for Downs syndrome almost universal.

In a now infamous 2017 tweet, CBS News announced that Iceland is "on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome ...." The language chosen by CBS News only revealed they shared Iceland's eugenic impulse. As actress Patricia Heaton replied, Iceland "was not, in fact, eliminating Down syndrome. They were just killing everyone who has it."

It's hard to think of a clearer example of some lives being considered worth less than others, based on the criterion that what constitutes a "worthwhile life" is what the person can do. As medical ethicist Chris Kaposy has written, "Western cultures value independence, and consequently people with high levels of dependency are often stigmatized." A more-accurate word, at least under some circumstances, would be "loathed."

Even "feel-good" stories about individuals with disability finishing a triathlon, or being a model, or scoring in a basketball game can betray sub-narratives of dehumanization. We end up "celebrating" these people for what they've done, not who they are, or how they mimic those things that earn value in our culture, rather than their intrinsic worth and dignity as Image-bearers. The stigma against these individuals remains.

The British "Do Not Resuscitate" orders took place in the midst of the pandemic, but the ideas that led to them existed long before. COVID-19 gave cover for these ideas to be put in practice under the guise of some "greater good" or "necessity."

Recently, a British joint committee on vaccinations announced that those with intellectual disabilities would be prioritized for the COVID-19 vaccine. That's good news, although it is likely merely a reaction to the scandal, but it doesn't address the eugenic impulse prevalent in so much of Western culture and medicine. Which means long after the COVID-19 emergency has passed, we'll still need to confront and displace the very bad idea that some lives are worth less than others, and we'll still need to stand up for and protect the victims of that very bad idea.

For the last few months at the Colson Center, we've been doing a Q&A feature on our podcast. Each Wednesday, Shane Morris and I field questions from our readers and listeners about all sorts of topics. But once in a while we get a question that deserves a full BreakPoint in response.

Recently, a woman wrote in asking how she can know that she's really worshipping God. "For years," she explains, "attending church meant singing in the choir, playing bells, women's Bible study, organizing funeral dinners, cleaning the church, making banners…now I'm in my mid 70s and all those things are not on my list anymore and I'm wondering: have I really been worshipping God all these years or was it just busy work? And how do we know if we are worshipping when we are sitting in church? Sorry to bother you but I'm locked in my house and my resources are limited."

First of all, what an outstanding question. To this listener: Your heart for the Lord and for His people is obvious, and it sounds like you have years of faithful, humble service behind you. Don't doubt for a moment that your work—whether in corporate worship, or feeding the congregation, or helping them grieve, celebrate, or just enjoy a beautiful space has been anything but precious in God's sight. Nor are you likely to know this side of eternity the kind of impact you had on the lives of your fellow worshippers.

Our culture teaches us to admire dramatic, heroic acts—the kind that make headlines and exciting movies. But I think if there's anyone sure to hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant," it's those like this listener, whose mundane, often unnoticed acts of love for the church span decades. "Busywork" has nothing to do with it. A life spent this way is more like, a "living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God."

Now, I understand there's more to this question. It sounds like this listener's time in church services has been put on hold because of COVID. How does someone who is no longer able to serve God's people in obvious ways continue to worship Him?

The answer really gets to the heart of what serving and worshipping God means. We have this deeply ingrained instinct that a higher calling must be dramatic, marked by speeches, battles, cures for diseases or passing historic legislation. But I'm convinced that the bulk of really world-changing work is done by ordinary people who will never make headlines, living faithful lives where God had placed them. They're the ones who really shape cultures and ultimately, eternity. Most importantly, their worship is pleasing to God.

Remember the story of the Widow's Mite? All of the rich dumped bags of gold into the temple coffer. The woman who had barely two copper coins to rub together? She dropped them both in. And Jesus said she out-gave them all.

The point is clear: The God who owns everything and has all power doesn't need our resources, and He's not impressed by our resumes. He's mainly interested in our faithfulness and our sincerity. And that's good news, because it means we can truly worship and glorify Him wherever we are and no matter how humble our circumstances.

Look, I get it. It's tough when your mission field shrinks. Every CEO who retires feels that letdown. Every mom whose child goes off to college wonders, "What now?" The point is that God doesn't need us to do "great things" for Him. He wants us to do the right thing no matter where we are.

Sweep the floor, make the bed, do the dishes, put food on the table, meditate on Scripture—maybe invite that neighbor no one ever talks with to join you. In all of these circumstances, it isn't so much what you do, but the Person for whom you do it that matters.

Our listener is right to see being in church as a priority. If at all possible and prudent, we should be with God's people and serve wherever we can. But though the worship we give Him on Sunday is central, Scripture is clear that everything done well to God's glory is also a spiritual act of worship. It's also clear that acts the world sees as having little value can be priceless in God's sight.

So, to our questioner: Keep up the good work, to the glory of God, wherever you find yourself, and you'll truly be worshipping. To the rest of our listeners: find someone like this woman and start taking notes.

And please join me and Shane every Wednesday on the BreakPoint Podcast, where we take and respond to readers' questions.

Ryan T. Anderson and Emilie Kao joined John to reveal the victims of the Equality Act.

Ryan T. Anderson is an American political philosopher who is best known for his opposition to same-sex marriage. He is currently president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Emilie Kao is an attorney who has defended religious freedom for the last 14 years. She has worked on behalf of victims of religious freedom violations in East Asia, the Middle East, Europe and South Asia at the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom and Becket Law.

Previously she worked at the United Nations and Latham and Watkins.

Kao also taught international human rights law at George Mason University Law School as an adjunct law professor.

Thirty years ago, the idea of socially and medically experimenting on children to advance a controversial and unproven ideology was unthinkable. Today, it's considered by some to be unquestionable. There is a full-court press to fully and finally embed transgender ideology in public life, especially with school-aged children, starting with the Equality Act.

In his promises and nominations, President Biden has made his priorities on this clear. In his first day in office, he signed an executive order forcing K-12 public schools that accept federal funds to adopt sexual orientation and gender identity policies. As Emilie Kao at The Heritage Foundation points out, this paves the way for ending girls'sports and violating the privacy of bathrooms and locker rooms. We can also expect curriculum that would expose elementary-age children to claims such as, "little girls might be little boys trapped in the wrong body." So-called "gender-affirming" treatments, including social reinforcement, puberty blockers, and even mutilating surgeries, will enforced as the only acceptable course of action for counselors, teachers, physicians, and parents.

At the root of this all-out assault on our children is the dangerously bad idea that adult desires matter more than the wellbeing of children. Each chapter of the sexual revolution, but especially the most recent ones, have placed "us before them," repeating the same myth in various forms: "the kids will be fine."

But they're not. As author and children's rights activist Katy Faust insists, "Our culture and our laws must incentivize and encourage adults to conform their behavior to the needs of their children." We need, she says, "a new global children's rights movement."

Christians ask me all the time, but especially when it comes to the all-out cultural assault on children, what can we do? My first answer is we must not sit this one out. In fact, Christian history is full of stories of Christians who confronted a pagan culture by seeking to protect children who were being abused and victimized. Two examples that come to mind are Amy Carmichael, who won souls and freed temple prostitutes, and William Wilberforce, who freed slaves and instituted child labor reforms.

This is our moment to live out our faith by looking after children.

To do just that is why the Colson Center has joined an important new coalition, of over a dozen other organizations, thousands of parents, and dozens of lawmakers. The Promise to America's Children (which is headed up by the Heritage Foundation, the Family Policy Alliance, and the Alliance Defending Freedom) has articulated a simple promise: that as adults, we will protect children in three areas: their minds, their bodies, and their most important relationships.

I'm quoting here from the Promise:

"I promise to nurture and protect your mind as you grow, doing everything in my power to keep you from harm, to instill values, and to give you the best opportunities for success."

"I promise to honor and protect your body as you grow, affirming your dignity and worth in the body you have been fearfully and wonderfully given."

"I promise to invest in, nurture, and protect our relationship because you are unconditionally loved by and of infinite worth to me."

Within each promise are a set of principles that identify the key ways children need protection. Their minds need to be protected from graphic pornography and harmful curriculum. Their bodies need to be protected with privacy in vulnerable places like bathrooms and from experimental surgeries that create permanent damage. Their relationships with parents need to be protected from unnecessary government intervention and educators who think parents don't deserve to know what's going on with their kids.

Read and sign this promise at promisetoamericaschildren.org. The statement can then be shared with your church leaders and legislators. In fact, the legislators that sign on receive model legislation that they can back and promote and that reflect the principles laid out in the full statement. Even better, you can share this statement and discuss the three areas to protect children and the ten principles of doing so, with your unbelieving friends and neighbors. I'm serious, this statement will help you discuss this difficult issue with others.

To be even better equipped, check out today's BreakPoint podcast. Dr. Ryan Anderson joins me to discuss the Equality Act, followed by Emily Kao, who is spearheading this coalition effort, The Promise to America's Children. Also, for a gift of any amount this month, we will send you Katy Faust's new book, Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement.

The Equality Act promises to impact nearly every aspect of life for men, women, and children. John Stonestreet, Shane Morris, and Maria Baer explore the impact the Equality Act will have on society.

The trio also explores cancel culture and how it is causing big tech responses to ideas that aren't celebrated in progressive advances. Ryan T. Anderson's book When Harry Became Sally, presents strong evidence through research and stories to show the challenge in responding outside of physical reality for those challenged by gender dysphoria. They reference Rand Paul's recent interaction with Rachel Levine, formerly known as Richard Levine, over what is called gender mutilation around the world. Called gender transitioning in America, Levine responds saying, essentially, the science is complicated but firm and settled. John highlights how this issue impacts some of the most vulnerable in our society, namely children, and the culture is experimenting on the vulnerable with this issue.

John calls Christians to respond in two ways. He calls Christians to research, build understanding, and discuss these issues in our circles. Christians cannot sit out on this issue. He also calls Christians to count the cost of participating in championing God's story on this matter. Maria highlights Solzhenitzyn's phrase Live Not By Lies, being made popular again by Rod Dreher.She notes that our call is simply to tell the truth, and helping others align their felt truth against physical reality.

To close, Maria shares a story from Smith College where a student was eating lunch in a closed cafeteria. After being nicely engaged and escorted out, the young lady took to social media to claim racial bias. After an investigation the school found the claims were unfounded. The trio unpack this issue, highlighting the clashes that are happening inside intersectionality.

Last summer, outside a California courtroom, a group of protestors gathered, marched, chanted, took lots of selfies, and held signs that read, "Free Britney." Footage from that day now comprises the opening scene of a newly released New York Times documentary about Britney Spears, the pop music star who rose to fame as barely a teenager in the early 2000s.

Spears is now in the middle of a legal battle over control of her financial estate. Her genuinely tragic story begins with her parents' insistence on making Britney a star at an extremely young age. Having achieved that goal, her innocent "bubble gum pop" persona turned into something far less innocent. After spending much of her career attempting to outdo her previous sexual explicitness, Britney Spears has spiraled into ongoing and severe mental health issues, worsened by broken relationships, and constantly being stalked by paparazzi.

Objectifying others is not only a sin itself, it leads to other sins. Pride, contempt, jealousy, adultery, murder, sexual predation, even self-harming behaviors like drug abuse and sexual promiscuity are all rooted in seeing and using people, even ourselves, as objects instead of Image-bearers.

Most Christians, and even non-Christians, would say that treating anyone in any of these ways is wrong. However, objectifying people has become so normal, we do it in ways we don't even realize. Some of those protestors who gathered outside the courthouse in California were probably genuinely concerned for her well-being. But what of the others, such as those telling reporters over and over how much they "love" this pop star they don't even know? Aren't they really using her, too?

After all, they've turned her situation – her tragedy and pain – into something to consume. It's entertainment, or catharsis. They are using a person they cannot practically love, serve, sacrifice for, or even talk to, and making her fill a need they have. That's objectification, too.

This behavior is different than admiring or honoring a well-known figure. There is a fundamental difference between, for example, the Americans who lined up along railroad tracks to honor the life of Abraham Lincoln as his body was taken to lie in state, and those who gathered for the "Free Britney" rally outside family court. Admiring virtue and being grateful for a life well-lived is different from looking to fill a need that should be met in real relationships.

In a celebrity-driven culture like ours, it is tempting to think we have a celebrity-shaped hole in our hearts instead of a God-shaped one. For artists, this takes the form of seeking to be popular instead of seeking excellence. For consumers, this takes the form of elevating and worshiping celebrities in their prime and then ridiculing them and gawking at them afterwards.

Celebrity-ism is as much a problem in the Church as out. We can be grateful for YouTube access to the teachings, articles, and sermons of our favorite pastors and for the inspiration from our favorite Christian authors or artists through Instagram. But are we idolizing? Are we angry if they say something we don't like, commenting as if they're not real people or as if their job is always to agree with us? Do we assume a level of intimacy that is not appropriate with someone we actually don't know? Do we use them to replace local churches or to provide spiritual authority in our lives, when that is not their place nor role?

The dangerous mistake is confusing our ability to enjoy the consumable goods we get from Christians "celebrities" or social-media influencers with a right to access or intimacy with the people themselves to meet our needs. It is a mistake we make with people we don't agree with, too. Just look how Christians treat each other on Twitter, as if we are dealing with cartoon characters instead of real people.

When it comes to the clarity we need on human value and boundaries with others, our culture is both out of ideas and off its foundation. Objectifying, idolizing, and "celebritizing" (I made that one up…) are all ways of treating image bearers as brands, not people, expecting them to fill our need, whether for diversion or community or meaning. In that context, mutual fandom and the hatred of a common enemy are two sides of the same coin.

No matter how interesting, how talented, how fun to love or hate they are, people are not objects.