Teacher placed on leave for opposing transgender pronouns sues Virginia school district

By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Monday, June 07, 2021

Transgender
A sign outside a classroom taken in 2016. | REUTERS/Tami Chappell

A teacher in Virginia has filed a lawsuit against his school district after its leadership put him on leave for rejecting policies that would implement transgender ideology in local schools.

Byron Tanner Cross, a physical education teacher at Leesburg Elementary School, filed suit last week against the Loudon County School Board for disciplining him for expressing concern over a proposed policy.

Filed in Loudon County Circuit Court, the suit accused the board, Interim Superintendent Scott A. Ziegler and another official of “viewpoint-based retaliation.”

“… this case is not about how schools should treat students who struggle with gender dysphoria,” stated the legal filing. 

“It is about whether public schools can punish a teacher for objecting, as a private citizen, to a proposed policy, in a forum designated for the purpose of considering whether to implement such policies, where the policy would force him to express ideas about human nature, unrelated to the school’s curriculum, that he believes are false.”

Cross is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit based in Scottsdale, Arizona, that has successfully argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement that he believes public schools cannot “suspend someone simply for respectfully providing their opinion at a public meeting.”

“The school district favors a certain set of beliefs on a hotly contested issue, and it wants to force Tanner to cry uncle and endorse them as well,” stated Langhofer. “That’s neither legal nor constitutional, and neither was the school’s move to place Tanner on leave.”

Last month, Cross told the Loudoun County School Board at a meeting that he could not “affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa.”

“My name is Tanner Cross, and I am speaking out of love for those who suffer with gender dysphoria,” said Cross at the May 25 meeting.

“I love all of my students, but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences. I’m a teacher, but I serve God first and I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it’s against my religion.”

Two days after the meeting, the school informed Cross that he was placed on administrative leave with pay “pending an investigation of allegations that [he] engaged in conduct that had a disruptive impact on the operations of Leesburg Elementary School.”

The proposed policy, known as Policy 8040, would require both staff and students of Loudon schools to use the chosen pronouns of students who identify as transgender or “gender-expansive.”

“LCPS staff shall allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity without any substantiating evidence, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent educational record,” a draft of the policy explains.

“Inadvertent slips in the use of names or pronouns may occur; however, staff or students who intentionally and persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy.”

His attorneys filed a motion for temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would halt the school district’s actions against Cross while the lawsuit is adjudicated. 

Cross is not the only Virginia public school teacher recently caught in the controversy over transgender ideology and gender identity in the classroom.

In 2019, a high school French teacher named Peter Vlaming sued the West Point School Board over his firing for using a trans-identified student’s chosen name instead of their preferred pronouns.

West Point Superintendent Laura Abel said in a statement released in December 2018 that they considered Vlaming’s actions discriminatory, noting that the student “felt disrespected.”

“That discrimination then leads to creating a hostile learning environment. And the student had expressed that. The parent had expressed that,” Abel stated at the time.

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

https://www.christianpost.com/news/teacher-punished-for-opposing-trans-pronouns-sues-school-district.html


CNN Blasted as ‘Propaganda’ for Asserting ‘It’s Not Possible’ to Know Sex at Birth

Michael Foust | ChristianHeadlines.com Contributor | Thursday, April 1, 2021

A tiny baby, CNN Blasted as Propaganda for Claiming ‘It’s Not Possible’ to Know Sex at Birth

A CNN news story claiming “it’s not possible” to know a person’s gender or sex at birth was widely panned across social media this week, mainly because it was stated as a non-debatable fact.

The story focused on two executive orders by South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem prohibiting males from competing in female sports. The article was highly critical of her position.

“It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth,” the CNN story said.

It didn’t take long for Christians and conservatives to notice the sentence.

“If you act like a propaganda outlet, people are going to treat you like a propaganda outlet. This is blatant @CNN,” tweeted Denny Burk, director of the Center for Gospel and Culture at Boyce College in Louisville, Ky.

“This is CNN. Unbelievable,” tweeted conservative radio host Erick Erickson.

“We live in a literal clown world where the elites pretend not to know what it means to be a man or a woman. The only way to maintain your sanity is to reject this absolute nonsense everywhere you see it,” tweeted author Allie Beth Stuckey.

“Actually, there is a scientific consensus for ‘assigning sex at birth.’ It’s called observation, coupled with a basic understanding of mammalian and human biology,” tweeted Hot Air senior editor Ed Morrissey.

“Hey @CNN, you wrote, ‘It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.’ Call me, and I’ll explain the criteria to you in 15 seconds,” tweeted David Prince, pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington, Ky.

One person tweeted, sarcastically, “Wonder if CNN would help me out and announce it’s ‘Not Possible To Know A Person’s Income On Tax Day.’”

The website eventually tweaked the sentence, although the change did little to appease Christians and other conservatives’ concerns. The new sentence read: “It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and for some people, the sex listed on their original birth certificate is a misleading way of describing the body they have.”

Related:

Father Jailed after Calling Transgender Child His ‘Daughter’ and Using Wrong Pronouns

Photo courtesy: ©Getty Images/Kieferpix


Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, The Christian Postthe Leaf-Chronicle, the Toronto Star and the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/cnn-blasted-as-propaganda-for-asserting-its-not-possible-to-know-sex-at-birth.html


VIDEO How the transgender agenda harms children

Feb 21, 2017 by LifeSite News

An expert on child sexual abuse warns that sex changes could do irreversible damage

Judith Reisman –

On March 28, the US Supreme Court is due to hear a case about transgender bathroom access lodged by a Virginia student, Gavin Grimm. Born a girl, she decided in Year 9 that she was actually a boy. The local school board refused to let her use the boys’ toilets. She sued, and now the case has moved up to the Supreme Court (Gloucester County School Board v GG).

Amongst the briefs filed by “friends of the court” are a number of documents which contend that the transgender agenda will harm students.

Today we are publishing excerpts from a brief by Dr Judith Reisman, founder of the Child Protection Institute and a  research professor at Liberty University School of Law. She is an internationally recognised expert on child sexual abuse and the influence of sexologist Alfred Kinsey.

* * * * * * *

As the [the Department of Justice and Department of Education Office of Civil Rights] instruct school districts, the purpose of Title IX is to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students. Assuming that is true, then its interpretation of Title IX to include “gender identity,” and particularly to compel districts to permit access to sex-separate facilities based solely on perceived gender is in conflict with that purpose. Moreover, the Departments’ advocacy for recognition of “transgender” children fosters experimental, life-changing medical protocols that do not comply with the dictates of medical ethics. Most importantly, the Departments are sanctioning an agenda- driven ideology that threatens the physical, mental and emotional well-being of children.

Despite studies showing that 80 to 95 percent of children who report dissonance between their perceived gender and biological sex find that their perceived gender and biological sex correspond by late adolescence, medical protocols for “transgender” children are calling for earlier intervention with puberty- suppressing drugs and cross-sex hormones. These protocols create irreversible sterility and other life-changing effects to which the children, as minors with immature brains, are unable to give informed consent. Nor can their parents give “informed” consent to such protocols as the long-term consequences of these early interventions are unknown.

There is not a single large, randomized, controlled study that documents the alleged benefits and potential harms to gender- dysphoric children from pubertal suppression and decades of cross- sex hormone use. Nor is there a single long-term, large, randomized, controlled study that compares the outcomes of various toxic synthetic steroids.*

Nevertheless, gender clinics encourage treatments that will suppress puberty “to allow the gender dysphoric child time to explore gender identity free from the emotional distress triggered by the onset of secondary sex characteristics.”  These treatments will condemn unknown numbers of children to sterility. In addition, use of puberty- suppressing drugs means that the children will never develop sperm or eggs.

Consequently, they would not even have the chance to harvest and preserve eggs or sperm for future use in assisted reproduction, an option some are given who go through puberty and then begin cross- sex hormones.

Furthermore, neuroscience has documented that children’s brains are cognitively immature until the early to mid- twenties. Scientists can digitally map how the brain develops, and have found that the portions of the brain that permit processing of complex concepts, such as “gender identity,” evaluating risk and making informed decisions are the last to mature, usually not until the early twenties. This means that children are not only legally, but cognitively incapable of giving informed consent to these treatments. Informed consent is a fundamental ethical requirement, particularly when, as is true for these early interventions, the treatment is irreversible and life-changing. The Nuremberg Code, developed in response to the human experimentation atrocities in Nazi Germany and still relied on in human research, states:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over- reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

Children are not legally capable of giving consent. Even if it could be assumed, arguendo, that parents can consent on behalf of their children, they still cannot give informed consent because the hazards and the effects upon children’s health have not been scientifically determined and therefore cannot be known prior to treatment. By advocating for the inclusion of gender identity in Title IX for elementary and secondary students, the Departments are placing the government’s imprimatur on human experimentation and involuntary sterilization of children wholly bereft of informed consent. Such disregard for the health and safety of children as well as the rule of law should not be given any effect by this Court.

Notes

* Michelle Cretella,
Gender Dysphoria in Children, American College of Pediatricians, (August 2016)

For the complete footnotes and bibliography in Dr Reisman’s statement, see her amicus curiae brief.

Dr Judith Reisman served as Principal Investigator for the United States Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice on child sexual abuse and child pornography, and has provided expert reports and testimony in cases worldwide. She is an internationally recognized expert on the history, fraudulent research and societal effects of Dr Alfred Kinsey. She has authored five books and hundreds of articles dealing with the implications of Kinsey’s research on law and public policy.

Source: How the transgender agenda harms children


Pediatrician on How Transgender Propaganda Harms Children | The Daily Signal

Dr. Michelle Cretella, a pediatrician and executive director of The American College of Pediatricians explains how leftist activist groups infiltrate schools, libraries, and even medical societies with transgender propaganda targeted at children. She then explains the irreversible sterilization and long term medical risks that can come from puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery.


Dr. Warren Farrell: Why Biden’s New Gender Policy Council Is Sexist | American Thought Leaders

Boys are four times as likely to commit suicide than girls between the ages of 15 and 19. They’re also significantly more likely to drop out of school, become homeless, and end up in prison, says Dr. Warren Farrell.

Yet, Joe Biden’s newly established Gender Policy Council focuses only on the problems faced by females and completely ignores the problems faced by men and boys, like absent fatherhood—the single biggest predictor of suicide, says

Dr. Farrell. Dr. Farrell has been researching and writing about gender issues since the 1960s. As a longtime feminist and the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in New York City, he is an unlikely critic of the Gender Policy Council.


VIDEO Female athlete in legal fight over transgender competitors slams Biden’s executive order

By Joe Saunders, The Western Journal

Madison Kenyon knows first-hand how unfair the Biden administration’s vision of women’s sports really is.

The Idaho State University student-athlete knows that women forced to compete against men in contests of strength and endurance are starting with a losing hand.

And since Joe Biden seized the presidency, she and countless other women have been shown that the full force of the federal government doesn’t take their rights as seriously as it takes the latest leftist fads.

Kenyon is one of two Idaho State students who sided in court last year with an Idaho law that bans males from competing in women’s sports, even if those males “identify” as women.

She appeared on “Fox & Friends” Monday with her attorney, Christiana Holcomb, to talk about the executive order Biden signed amid the flurry on his first day of office lets “transgender” athletes compete in women’s sports despite the natural, undeniable physical advantages that the male human body has over its female counterpart.

Recognizing the reality of the differences between the sexes, Idaho’s Republican Gov. Brad Little signed a law in May that banned all teams sponsored by public schools, colleges and universities from allowing male athletes from competing in women’s sports, according to The Associated Press.

The law, along with another that prohibited individuals from receiving new birth certificates with a gender other than the one they were born with, was inevitably challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU called the laws “discriminatory, unconstitutional and deeply hurtful,” according to CNN.

But for Kenyon, what’s “deeply hurtful” is to be forced into an athletic competition with an opponent who has advantages literally built-in by nature.

“I have competed against a biological male in cross-country and indoor track. It’s super frustrating and unmotivating to lose against a biological male in your own sport,” she told Fox News’ Ainsley Earhardt.

“And having experienced that, I decided to get involved in this lawsuit because I felt like it was the best way for me to get my voice out and fight for these opportunities that should be preserved for women.”

That’s the kind of statement that should draw cheers from the liberal end of the political spectrum, where women’s empowerment is supposed to be a top priority. But women like Kenyon — and better-known figures like “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling — are finding out that in the 21st century, the rights of imaginary females are trouncing the rights of flesh-and-blood women.

And as Biden’s executive order showed, the White House is fully on board with that.

Holcomb, Kenyon’s attorney, put Biden’s action in perspective even liberals should be able to understand.

“What we do know is it sends a message loud and clear to female athletes like Madison that you don’t matter to this administration,” she told Earhardt.

“Frankly, federal law does not matter to this administration, because federal law is really clear that we have women’s sports as a separate category to ensure that female athletes get to be champions and get to have [a] fair and level playing field.”

The reality is, this shouldn’t even be a matter for serious people to debate. Literally, every human being who passes puberty knows full well that the male body as a rule is bigger and stronger. That basic fact is only more true when it comes to athletes and physical conditioning. It’s why Serena Williams and Rafael Nadal, for instance, will never play for a title at Wimbledon.

(It’s why Serena Williams probably won’t be eager to play any reasonably ranked male tennis player for that matter. At least not in public.)

The fact that some males decide to wear dresses or flowers in their hair doesn’t change the basic makeup of their bodies.

Athletes like Kenyon, who spend their lives training to compete in a sport against their peers, are getting the shaft from the same Democrats and leftists that claim to champion women’s advancement in every other aspect of society.

“This is important to me because I’ve experienced it. I know how unmotivating it is and how frustrating it is to lose to a biological male and to see them on the podium in the female sports,” Kenyon told Earhardt. “And I don’t think any other female should have to experience that.”

It’s unclear how, or if, Biden’s executive order would affect the ACLU’s challenge to the Idaho law, but it is clear the issue isn’t going away.

Holcomb, as befits an attorney, rendered the argument in unassailable logic.

“Men and women are not identical, and this is really showcased well in sports. The whole reason that we have women’s sports as a separate category is to showcase those physiological differences and ensure that female athletes like Madison get a chance to be champions…,” she said.

“At bottom, what we need to be doing is ensuring that the female sex category is protected because there are those physical differences between the sexes that make it unfair to force females to compete against physiologically superior male athletes.”

That isn’t rocket science. It’s not advanced medicine. It’s a simple fact of life understood by every honest person whose mind isn’t warped by leftist propaganda.

That might leave out Biden and his backers, but it still includes the majority of Americans — whether they’re men or women, athletes or couch potatoes.

And doubters can always ask someone like Madison Kenyon.


Female Athletes Speak Out, Demand Fairness in Women’s Sports


Rep. Tulsi Gabbard defends “Protect Women’s Sports Act”

The End of Women’s Sports

VIDEO CA Legislators Blame Religious People For High LGBT Suicide Rates – no such thing as transgender

There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None.

By Glenn T. Stanton  JUNE 27, 2019

Legislators in California have discovered yet another way to make it clear that mainstream religions holding to the sexual teachings of their sacred texts have no business doing so in the Golden State. Why? Because these faiths, which billions of good people worldwide happily hold, do not embrace homosexuality. This includes the three largest: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

In a resolution that recently passed the state assembly, “the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance” of LGBT people. It singles out especially faith-motivated individuals and organizations.

These legislators make a very ugly accusation against such people. California lawmakers are planning to spread the idea, with the power and moral authority of the state, that such religious beliefs actually kill people, including children. The text of this bill boldly states:

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBT often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBT and questioning individuals…

Note the absoluteness of their conclusions, particularly two words: create and cause. Stigma, created by religious groups, causes high rates of suicide.

Do Religious People Make Others Commit Suicide?

Let it sink in. Christians, Muslims, and Jews, your beliefs make gay people kill themselves. If this is indeed true, we are among the worst of the worst kinds of people. These legislators believe this is true and are doing something about it. California is trying to insist that churches, synagogues and mosques, their leaders, congregants, grade schools, universities, and families fully and uncritically support homosexual, bisexual, and transgender identities in every way.

Thus, any teaching, preaching, writings or practices that are faithful to the clear sexual instructions of these faiths will be beyond the pale of official California values. They will not be tolerated. This charge makes this legislation overwhelmingly serious and consequential because of the seriousness of this charge. Either one party is directly culpable for deaths or the other of making such a dreadful allegation.

To be clear, what they’re proposing is a resolution and would not have the razor-sharp edge of law. But it would have the real and devastating blunt force of state-sanctioned shaming of religious convictions. They couldn’t criminalize you, but they could obliterate your reputation and your life. There are too many vivid examples of this already. Of course, this resolution will grease the skids for it becoming enforceable law.

I want to demonstrate, through some objective and undeniable facts, coupled with simple reasoning, why this long-used accusation has no foundation. The case consists of three basic points:

  • There is simply no dependable research support for the accusation. None.
  • Gay and lesbian individuals themselves report being significantly more likely to choose to attend the very churches that teach a more traditional sexual ethic than they do so-called “welcoming and affirming” churches.
  • The most dramatically gay-friendly places in the world still have incredibly and disproportionately high rates of suicides among their gay and lesbian individuals.

1. No Real Evidence

There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None. It is largely created as an ideological assumption and political cudgel. But to even question the assertion will cast you immediately as a heartless stone. Remember, any science that does not permit it to be questioned has become fundamentalist dogmatism.
There is a very small amount of literature on the general harms of family rejection (which we at Focus on the Family strongly advise against), but none showing it causessuicide. There is certainly none establishing religious causation. That is an objective fact. Quite simply, anyone making the claim family responses and religious teaching cause suicide do so absent any bit of scientific proof.

2. LGBT People Choose More Traditional Churches

Let’s look at data that raise serious questions about the “religion kills” assertion. Research done by two gay-friendly scholars from Columbia and the University of California at Los Angeles found that, to their absolute disbelief, church-attending, same-sex-attracted individuals are 2.5 times more likely to attend congregations that hold and teach a more traditional, biblical view of sexuality than they are to attend so-called welcoming and affirming churches.
Let’s consider the implications of this interesting finding. Suppose for a moment that the “religion kills” accusation is correct. Either these individuals are too dull to realize they are doing grave harm to themselves by regularly attending such churches, or they find such churches are quite lovely and helpful. Why else would they choose to wake up early on a Sunday morning and go to the trouble of getting themselves there?
This study’s abstract states, “Guided by minority stress theory, the authors hypothesized that exposure to non-affirming religious settings would lead to higher internalized homophobia, more depressive symptoms, and less psychological well-being.” They were honest in admitting they found “There was no main effect of non-affirming religion on mental health, an unexpected finding discussed in this article.” No main effect on mental health itself, much less suicide.

3. Gay-Affirming Societies Also Have High Suicide Rates

Leading gay activists and their faithful allies in the media and academia operate on a simple and seemingly reasonable premise: non-acceptance of homosexuality leads to greater levels of suicide. To reduce these tragic rates, replace non-acceptance with full affirmation and all will be well. Doing so would not only dramatically reduce suicide, but also the disproportionately higher levels of mental illness among this population, which are strongly and consistently documented. (See herehere and here for just three strong examples.)
This thesis is easy to test: Determine the most gay-affirming places in the world. Are the suicide rates of gay and lesbian individuals in these places significantly lower than in non-affirming countries?
The most gay-affirming places on the planet are the Netherlands and Scandinavia. In Amsterdam, the gay movement has received every major law, policy, or cultural accommodation they’ve requested, with nearly no opposition, and often with great celebration. They televise their annual gay pride parade, and Amsterdam spends more than a million euros a year to promote itself as “The Gay Capital of the World.” The land of windmills and tulips is gay Valhalla.
Their gay and lesbian suicide rates should be extremely low, if non-existent, right?  That is not what scholars, government officials, and clinicians find. Rates of suicide and suicidal ideation among gay youth and adults are remarkably, tragically high in the Netherlands. Scholars even have a name for this. They call it the “Dutch Paradox.”
Despite the Netherlands’ reputation as a world leader with respect to gay rights, homosexual Dutch men have much higher rates of mood disorders, anxiety disorders and suicide attempts than heterosexual Dutch men. Epidemiologists report similar disparitieselsewhere in Western Europe and North America. [Emphasis mine.]
Let’s look at just a few examples of evidence. A 2006 Dutch study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported that despite living “in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality” gay and lesbian-identified people were at dramatically higher risk for suicidality than the general Dutch population.
More recently, a 2016 Swedish study shows that the rate of gay males suffering from lifetime suicidal ideation there is 140 percent greater. The same measure for women there is 110 percent higher than the general population. Bisexuals are curiously even higher, with females 250 percent more likely and bisexual men 160 percent.
In France, fourth on the world’s gay-friendly list, gays and lesbians are on average 80 percent more likely to suffer suicidal ideation than their straight peers. All countries that keep such data show similar findings, regardless of changes in attitudes and policies concerning LGB-identified individuals.

Do Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Affect Rates?

With greater specificity, a 2016 study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology examined how legalizing gay-marriage affected suicidality. It should have reduced it, right? Yet Swedes in same-sex marriages, enjoying their anticipated greater social acceptance and security, retained suicide rates nearly three times that of their married opposite-sex peers. The authors caution these numbers are likely an underestimation. A similar study found that Danish men in legal same-sex unions had a dramatic eightfold increase in suicide deaths over opposite-sex married peers.
The fact of the matter is this: There is no research whatsoever demonstrating significantly reduced rates of suicidal deaths or attempts among gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people as the overall acceptance or affirmation of these groups in a country increases. Any honest person who knows this literature well will admit it.
Thus, this is the conclusion that must be admitted: If the “acceptance of homosexuality equals reduction of suicide” thesis has any validity to it, a society would need to far exceed the acceptance, affirmation, and even celebratory actions of the Netherlands and other countries to demonstrate it. Of course, this is reasonably impossible. What is there left to do that these countries are not already doing?
Reasonable people, even those in the gay rights movement, must call for a sharp end to the absolutely vile and false accusation that certain mainstream religious traditions are culpable for the deaths of gay and lesbian people. The Bible Belt does not run through Amsterdam, Stockholm, or Copenhagen.
We must admit that something else is driving the tragically high suicide rates of our gay and lesbian neighbors, and it’s not traditional faith convictions. True compassion demands we find out what that cause is; these lives are too valuable to play baseless politics with.

Glenn T. Stanton is a Federalist senior contributor who writes and speaks about family, gender, and art, is the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, and is the author of the brand new “The Myth of the Dying Church” (Worthy, 2019). He blogs at glenntstanton.com.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/ca-legislators-blame-religious-people-high-lgbt-suicide-rates/


There is no such thing as transgender – John F MacArthur

“A soft and effeminate Christianity”

By Allan Erickson – June 2, 2019

OPEN THEOLOGY & INCARNATIONAL MISSIOLOGY

the·ol·o·gy – the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

Historic Judeo-Christian theology reaching back 6,000 years has always held that God is Almighty: all powerful, all knowing, always present, everywhere, all the time. For sixty years, this was my understanding, reaching back to Sunday school.

So imagine my surprise when our pastor began teaching Open Theology, a relatively new theology, positing the idea God does not know everything, that he is sometimes surprised by our behavior, that he changes his mind and his methods when surprised by our responses. Some theorists believe God was surprised by the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden, that he didn’t see evil coming.  Others note that Abraham and Moses appealed to God to change his mind and he did, all of this demonstrating the truth of Open Theology. Open Theists also claim God does not know all that is going to happen in future, despite his perfect track record in prophesy.  So part of the impact of Open Theology is to encourage people to question the inerrancy of Scripture.

When questions inevitably arose our pastor indicated we were not thinking this through properly. He insisted Open Theology was valid, clearly affirmed in Scripture, and further, it did not contradict God’s omniscience, “the state of knowing everything.” One person put it pointedly: “If God does not know everything, then He is not God.”

It is the height of cognitive dissonance to suggest God knows everything, and then in the same breath claim He does not know everything, concluding there is nothing wrong with such a belief system! Clearly, Scripture proclaims from cover to cover the omniscience of God.  God himself tells us He is all knowing. So what is this foolishness about?  This article helps with a more detailed treatment:  A Critique of Open Theism.  In further study we find that Open Theology is an attempt to synthesize Scripture and Greek philosophy, heretical in the view of the majority.

If sound doctrine directs the effective work of the Church, then errant theology destroys sound doctrine and renders the work of the Church impotent. If a pastor’s job is to evangelize and disciple, how is it a job well done to teach that God is double-minded, unreliable, superficial or inconsistent?

Can any theology of doubt strengthen faith?

In seminary, another theology eventually discouraged my faith and further attendance. Out of the blue, seminary professors and administration proclaimed students would be marked down for using male pronouns in reference to the Father. We were told referring to “He” or “Him” reinforced patriarchy, the sin of excluding females. Thus, if we prayed to “Him” or wrote about “Him,” we would receive a lower grade.  This was not subject to discussion.  It was settled theology.

I suggested we were asking the wrong question: that the better question would be, “Lord, why do you refer to yourself both in terms of maleness, and in terms of femaleness?” My suggestion was treated as impertinence. Consequently I stopped going to seminary. This was about 25 years ago.

Errant theology goes a long way toward causing confusion. God is not the author of confusion. He is the author of peace. (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Now we have something called “Incarnational Missiology.”  This theology invites us to “rethink” the nature of missions. As with Open Theology and our perception of God the Father, we are encouraged to question without merit and revise belief without grounds.

At a church we no longer attend, our daughter was enjoying youth group as a 6th grader. She enjoyed socializing with friends and playing games, having a good time each week. The teaching of Scripture was a bit on the light side, but, we believed she was growing in faith. We would soon be jolted back to reality.

One week she came home with something troubling her. She reported a transgender individual had joined youth group.  Our daughter had questions of course. Apparently the transgender person had immediately notified everyone she was a boy in a girl’s body. This caused a great deal of confusion and concern, the primary concern being, ‘How do we rightly respond?’

As with so many ‘cutting edge theologies,’ Incarnational Missiology employs many, many words and Scripture references to explain a systematic approach to ‘rethinking.’

Essentially the idea is we must engage the world with sensitivity, focusing on relationships. We must be present ‘incarnationally’ and influence people by maintaining a soft and accepting proximity. Apparently the idea is this: if we are very, very nice in constant contact with the lost, good will rub off and they will eventually come around. The proclamation of the Word and the call to repent of sin are put on the back burner or removed from the stove altogether. In other words, the real medicine is withheld.

So, when we asked staff how they were going to handle the advocacy of transgenderism within youth group for 6th graders, we were told, “These things take time.”  Staff indicated an awareness the issue could not be ignored but there was no plan to intervene on behalf of the child’s welfare, and no plan to disciple Christian kids on how to rightly respond, in love. The answer, according to staff, was to make sure the child felt warmly welcomed.

Obviously my wife and I discussed all this extensively, including our daughter in many of those discussions. It felt as if the LGBTQ movement had kicked down my door and demanded my 6th grade daughter affirm them unconditionally.  Further, it felt as if our church was more concerned about offending someone than taking a principled stand, trusting God with everyone’s highest good.  The child’s welfare, though not ignored, seemed a lesser priority compared to political activism, cultural warfare and conflict avoidance.

There was no reconciliation between my feelings and the theology being applied: I was convicted about sin, but called to ignore it. It felt as if my daughter’s spiritual growth was not as important as accommodating and even affirming aberrant behaviors.  Then, it dawned on me.  It wasn’t about my feelings. It was about God’s will for people.  It wasn’t about their feelings either.  It was about redemption.  Once again, Scripture came to the rescue.

God’s Word calls on all unbelievers and believers to repent of their sin—no matter the sin—and enter the newness of life. Only by repentance can we experience the marvelous liberation God delivers! Sin is a cruel task master! Why would we leave a suffering person in sin?  It’s cruel!  God commands us to show people the way out!

God commands believers to witness to His liberating power. He commands us to preach the Word, always.  He urges us to share His love with everyone, everywhere, but nowhere does he suggest we accommodate sin, or preach a different gospel.  In fact he condemns compromise.

It has been a year since the transgender girl declared she was a boy in a girl’s body. Reportedly, she now insists people call her by her new male name.  She is still warmly welcomed in youth group yet she is apparently further away from salvation.  Is it right then to doubt the value of “Incarnational Missiology?”

Notice that with Open Theology, so-called patriarchy in the Bible, and Incarnational Missiology, all seek to address some kind of discomfort we experience. We are not comfortable with evil in the world so to deal with the discomfort we theorize God is not all knowing.  We dislike patriarchy so we assume God made a mistake and presume to edit his Word, taking out all the male pronouns.  We are repulsed by the leather-lunged preachers of the past, shunning the sense of guilt that leads to repentance, so we come up with a touchy-feely gospel to make it all cushy and comfortable.

The work of the church is to present the Gospel, urge repentance, evangelize the lost and disciple believers. It is a mission presented straightforwardly in the Scripture.  It is not complicated.  And it is not a soft, accommodating mission.  It can be very rugged.

But why do we complicate it?

Why do we think we have to ‘rethink’ or ‘revise’ or ‘redo’ what Jesus and Paul and others clearly modeled for us? Why do we come to believe a Gospel that a 1st grader can understand must somehow be refashioned by Ph.Ds so that the world will be accommodated?

In truth, our churches are weakened, even destroyed, by the author of confusion. As he did in the Garden, he tempts us by questioning God’s word and His character, and by enticing us to play god, rather than worship Him in spirit and truth.

Please consider, in conclusion, the wise words of a 19th century Scottish pastor:

A SOFT & EFFEMINATE CHRISTIANITY

Horatius Bonar (1808 – 1889) Scottish churchman and poet

For there is some danger of falling into a soft and effeminate Christianity, under the plea of a lofty and ethereal theology.

Christianity was born for endurance…It walks with firm step and erect frame; it is kindly, but firm; it is gentle, but honest; it is calm, but not facile; obliging, but not imbecile; decided, but not churlish. It does not fear to speak the stern word of condemnation against error, nor to raise its voice against surrounding evils, under the pretext that it is not of this world.

It does not shrink from giving honest reproof lest it come under the charge of displaying an unchristian spirit. It calls sin ’sin,’ on whomsoever it is found, and would rather risk the accusation of being actuated by a bad spirit than not discharge an explicit duty. Let us not misjudge strong words used in honest controversy. Out of the heat a viper may come forth; but we shake it off and feel no harm.

The religion of both Old and New Testaments is marked by fervent outspoken testimonies against evil. To speak smooth things in such a case may be sentimentalism, but it is not Christianity. It is a betrayal of the cause of truth and righteousness. If anyone should be frank, manly, honest, cheerful (I do not say blunt or rude, for a Christian must be courteous and polite), it is he who has tasted that the Lord is gracious, and is looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God.

I know that charity covereth a multitude of sins; but it does not call evil good, because a good man has done it; it does not excuse inconsistencies, because the inconsistent brother has a high name and a fervent spirit. Crookedness and worldliness are still crookedness and worldliness, though exhibited in one who seems to have reached no common height of attainment.

 

Original here