In an age where the church grapples with political divides, a new curriculum titled “The After Party” emerges, aiming to bridge gaps within Christian communities. Developed by Curtis Chang, founder of Redeeming Babel, along with David French, a New York Times columnist, and Russell Moore, editor in chief of Christianity Today, the curriculum proposes to reorient Christian political identity towards a more unified approach. However, beneath its harmonious veneer, as revealed by Megan Basham’s investigative work, lies a concerning alignment with left-leaning, pro-LGBTQ, and pro-abortion funding sources.
Curtis Chang, David French, and Russell Moore, the authors of “The After Party” curriculum, epitomize everything that is wrong with today’s Church—a complete abandonment of traditional Christian values—by nearly wholly embracing progressive ideologies. Chang’s assertion that New Age breathing techniques came from Jesus and that the COVID vaccine “redeems an abortion” in the same way that Jesus redeems us on the cross, is demonstrative of this leftward social justice drift. French, as a critic of conservative Christian politics, and an advocate for progressive stances on LGBTQ rights, is anything but a Christian teacher. And Moore’s approach to race and immigration, while attempting to address vital social issues, is more aligned with secular progressivism than with biblical orthodoxy.
This trio’s involvement in a Christian political curriculum raises profound concerns about their ability to remain true to Scripture and free from bias. Why anyone would listen to this literal circus of clowns and take them seriously is beyond comprehension—yet, sadly, many do. Their perspectives, intermingled with progressive ideologies, not only challenge but also potentially distort the Christian faith’s fundamental principles. Consequently, “The After Party” is nothing more than a contentious attempt to infiltrate the Church with progressive politics while diluting sound Christian doctrine all under the guise of addressing “political divides” within the church.
Megan Basham’s research peels back the layers, revealing funding from sources like the Rockefeller Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Fetzer Institute. These organizations, known for their support of liberal causes, including LGBTQ rights and abortion, demonstrate an underlying agenda is completely at odds with conservative orthodox Christian values. The involvement of these progressive donors in a curriculum that claims to heal the political divide in churches is, at best, ironic, and at worst, deeply troubling.
Join Us and Get These Perks:
✅ No Ads in Articles
✅ Access to Comments and Discussions
✅ Community Chats
✅ Full Article and Podcast Archive
✅ The Joy of Supporting Our Work 😉
This brings us to a critical point: Should there be political divisions in churches? The answer, firmly rooted in Scripture and Christian orthodoxy, is yes—when those divisions reflect fundamental moral and theological principles. Political positions advocating for abortion rights or LGBTQ activism stand in stark contrast to biblical teachings. For instance, the sanctity of life is a non-negotiable Christian doctrine, making pro-abortion stances incompatible with Christian beliefs.
Moreover, the normalization of LGBTQ lifestyles, including the controversial exposure of children to drag queens, as suggested by David French as a “blessing of liberty,” is a clear rejection of God’s moral standards on sexuality and family revealed in Scripture. These are not mere differences in policy preference but are, in fact, rebellious deviations from core Christian doctrines.
Leftist ideologies, encompassing wokeness, LGBTQ advocacy, and pro-abortion stances, represent more than political viewpoints—they embody a worldview that directly contradicts Christianity. The infiltration of these ideologies into Christian curriculum, particularly one funded by groups with a vested interest in promoting these ideologies, is a cause for deep concern. It risks diluting the church’s witness and compromises its ability to stand firm on biblical truths.
The After Party, despite its intentions to heal divisions, inadvertently highlights the necessity of those very divisions. As Christians, the call is not to erase all differences in the name of unity but to discern and uphold truths central to the faith, even when that means standing against prevailing cultural and political winds. When it comes to matters of core doctrine and moral principles, unity must not come at the expense of truth. In this context, Megan Basham’s revelations serve as a sobering reminder of the vigilance needed in a world where the line between faith and politics is increasingly blurred, and the gospel’s truth must remain paramount.