Johns Hopkins University announced a professor who defended pedophilia would be joining its child sexual abuse prevention center.
The university’s Moore Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse announced on Twitter Thursday that former Old Dominion University (ODU) professor Allyn Walker would be joining as a postdoctoral fellow on May 25. Walker garnered national attention in November over his claims it is not immoral for adults to be sexually attracted to children.
ODU placed Walker on immediate administrative leave on Nov. 16 due to the negative backlash and disruptive “reactions” from the university community. On Nov. 25, ODU announced Walker would be stepping down from his position.
In his book, “A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity,” Walker challenges “widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors—often referred to as ‘pedophiles’” and looks at the “lives of non-offending minor-attracted persons (MAPs),” a term used to describe the group because it is less stigmatizing than a word like “pedophile,” according to Walker.
“From my perspective, there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they’re attracted to at all,” Walker said in a November interview with the Prostasia Foundation. “In other words, it’s not who we’re attracted to that’s either okay or not okay. It’s our behaviors and responding to that attraction that are either okay or not okay.”
The center defended its decision to hire Walker, calling him a “leader in the field of perpetration prevention research, which is essential for developing a comprehensive public health approach to addressing child sexual abuse and effective prevention programs.”
The Moore Center aims to change the way “people view child sexual abuse” through its mission of “supporting and conducting interdisciplinary research, educating and training students and professionals, providing objective information to policymakers and the media, and partnering with organizations,” according to its website.
Walker could not be reached for comment on LinkedIn, does not accept messages on Facebook and has no contact on the Moore Center’s website. John Hopkins University did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Biden transgender health mandate blocked by federal court in Christian alliance’s appeal
Judge says no government agency should evaluate ‘sincerity of another’s religious beliefs’
A federal district court Monday temporarily blocked the enforcement of two Biden administration mandates forcing both nonprofit and for-profit religious employers and health care providers to pay for and perform transgender medical procedures and counseling even if these measures violate the employers’ or providers’ religious beliefs.
District Judge Daniel M. Traynor of the U.S. District Court of North Dakota ruled that the Christian Employers Alliance “has shown a likelihood of success on the merits” in its case.
“No government agency ought to be in the business of evaluating the sincerity of another’s religious beliefs,” Traynor wrote.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra (Shawn Thew/Pool via AP, File)
“HHS Guidance encourages a parent to file a complaint if a medical provider refuses to gender transition their child, of any age, including an infant,” the judge noted. “The thought that a newborn child could be surgically altered to change gender is the result of the Biden HHS Notification and HHS Guidance that brands a medical professional’s refusal to do so as discrimination. Indeed, the HHS Guidance specifically invites the public to file complaints for acting in a manner the Alliance says is consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
“Beyond the religious implications, the Biden HHS Notification and resulting HHS Guidance frustrate the proper care of gender dysphoria, where even among adults who experience the condition, a diagnosis occurs following the considered involvement of medical professionals,” the judge added. “By branding the consideration as ‘discrimination,’ the HHS prohibits the medical profession from evaluating what is best for the patient in what is certainly a complex mental health question.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seal inside a hearing room at headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images, File)
The Christian Employers Alliance, represented by the Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, claims that the Biden administration violated its free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, and its free speech rights.
The alliance claimed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the HHS Office of Civil Rights and its agents misinterpreted Section 1157 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) – also known as ObamaCare – when sending guidance interpreting denial of transgender medical procedures and counseling as discrimination on the basis of sex.
Neither the EEOC nor HHS responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.
The mandates would force religious employers and health care providers to pay for and perform surgeries, procedures, counseling and treatments that seek to alter a patient’s biological sex, even if such actions violate the employers’ or providers’ convictions.
“The administration’s mandates are crippling for the countless Christian-owned and operated businesses seeking to care well for their employees without the fear of punishing fines, burdensome litigation costs, the loss of federal funds, and even criminal penalties,” Christian Employers Alliance President Shannon Royce said in a statement on the ruling.
“As stewards of the health and safety of our valued employees, it is unconscionable and unconstitutional to be mandated to provide, pay for, or promote services and procedures that directly contradict our deeply held religious beliefs,” Royce added. “We are pleased that we can continue to act consistent with those beliefs while our lawsuit proceeds and look forward to ultimately prevailing with our case.”
“All employers and health care providers, including those in the Christian Employers Alliance, have the constitutional right to conduct their business and render treatment in a manner consistent with their deeply held religious beliefs,” ADF Legal Counsel Jacob Reed, who argued before the court on behalf of CEA, said in a statement Monday.
“The employers we represent believe that God purposefully created humans as either male or female, and so it would violate their religious beliefs to pay for or perform life-altering medical procedures or surgeries that seek to change one’s biological sex,” Reed added. “The court was on firm ground to halt enforcement of these unlawful mandates that disrespect people of faith.”
Tyler O’Neil is an editor at Fox News. On Twitter: @Tyler2ONeil. News tips can be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is one of 134 member associations of the gigantic International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which works in 142 nations on every continent. It joins two other multinational non-governmental organizations that do the most damage to faith, life and family in the world — the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the architect and supporter of the Chinese forced abortion program, and the Population Council, founded and supported by eugenicists, now serving as the guiding hand behind population suppression efforts all over the world.
Planned Parenthood Abortion Statistics
Planned Parenthood commits about 40% of abortions in the United States
Their annual abortion count is up to 354,871 and growing
96.9% of pregnant women who seek help at Planned Parenthood have abortions.
From the CMP website: “Citizen journalists at CMP spent two-and-a-half years logging thousands of research hours to painstakingly gather hundreds of hours of undercover footage, dozens of eye-witness testimonies, and nearly two hundred pages of primary source documents.”
In exposing the illegal and barbaric practice of harvesting aborted baby parts for profit, the videos document the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the biotech firm StemExpress, which buys and resells aborted baby body parts for medical research.
Officials in the Grants Pass, Oregon, school district have dismissed two teachers who had developed, with the knowledge and approval of school officials, a plan to address the developing transgender demands in public schools that would protect teacher, parent and student rights.
Fox San Antonio confirmed North Middle School assistant principal Rachel Damiano and science teacher Katie Medart each was dismissed on a 4-3 vote of the school board.
The two already have pending against the district a lawsuit.
The two had been placed on leave in March, after they worked to create their “I Resolve” campaign. They had worked to develop a solution to the problem facing schools with the new campaign to let students who are struggling with gender identity choose what sex they will purport to be.
The faculty members started a grassroots organization called “I Resolve” to address education policies on gender-identity disputes, and to offer solutions that would let teachers continue teaching without violating their consciences and honoring parental rights.
They started their work in order to “promote a tolerant solution to gender identity education policy.”
They suggested allowing staff and students to abide by their consciences and refrain from using preferred pronouns for students whose anatomic sex does not match the students’ pronoun of choice. Damiano and Medart also propose requiring parent involvement to change students’ pronouns.
They also had suggested that restrooms be restricted to those who anatomically fit the definition of male or female.
They had consulted with school officials in preparing their proposal and Kirk Kolb, the superintendent, even indicated he’d bring it up to the board members, who are defendants in a court case along with him, Principal Thomas Blanchard and the district.
But when they promoted their ideas in a video that they created on their own, they were put on leave “pending an investigation.”
They were told that five other school workers had complained that their Christian beliefs were “anti-transgender” and therefore unacceptable. And they now have gone to court to protect their rights. On their behalf, the Pacific Justice Institute is seeking a court order returning them to their jobs, and damages.
Just the News reported school officials even had ordered the two to “issue a disclaimer” when they discuss their personal views while off campus.
Their request for a temporary restraining order against the school explained they have had to stop sharing social media posts about their “I Resolve” campaign because of the chilling effect of the district’s anti-speech threats.
The teachers’ work came in response to the proposed federal Equality Act, which would provide special protections for individuals with gender dysphoria or other gender issues under federal civil rights laws.
The same issue recently was before a state judge in Virginia, who quickly ordered officials in the Loudoun County Public Schools to reinstate a teacher they had suspended for stating during an open comment period at a school board meeting his Christian beliefs that do not support transgenderism.
There, Judge James E. Plowman Jr. ordered the school district to restore his status pending a full trial on the dispute.
“The court finds that the plaintiff’s speech and religious content are central to the determination made by the defendants to suspend plaintiff’s employment,” the judge wrote. “Defendants shall immediately reinstate the plaintiff to his position as it was prior to the issuance of this suspension and remove the ban that was placed upon him from all buildings and grounds of Loudoun County Public Schools.”
The Grants Pass district held hearings for both on Thursday, voting then to dismiss them.
The Fox report explained, “Around 65 people protested in favor of both educators. The protests started around 2:30 p.m. and lasted until 6:30 p.m. Not every supporter was able to attend the meetings, because of fire marshal capacity. Those who did not attend chanted in honor of Damiano and Medart from the front of Grants Pass High School.”
Wake up, America: Cultural Marxism ‘identifying’ as transgenderism
Walt Heyer exposes ‘devalue, dehumanize and destroy’ strategy
Parents packed the Dec. 15 school board meeting in Salinas, California, over the revelation that two middle school teachers were coaching students into gender confusion and into an LGBTQ+ support club, also known as Genders and Sexualities Alliances, or GSA, clubs, without parents’ knowledge.
One mother testified that the teacher gave a boy’s name to her daughter without the mother’s knowledge. Then when she met with the teacher to protest, the school called child protective services on her.
The same two teachers held a workshop in October called “How We Run a ‘GSA’ in Conservative Communities,” and recordings reveal they were coaching colleagues in how to hide the true nature of such clubs from parents. This example illustrates several tactics of cultural Marxism examined in my January 2021 article “It’s Not Just ‘Gender Dysphoria.’ It’s Now ‘Rapid Onset Marxism.'”
Hundreds of parents have written me about their school-aged and college-aged children suddenly announcing trans identities. As a man who identified as a woman for eight years, I know trans identities intimately. Urging children along this path is child abuse.
The transgender indoctrination starts young. Trans-affirming curriculum and storybooks plant seeds of gender confusion in children (aka “grooming”) as early as kindergarten by pushing the bogus idea that children can choose their gender. Many school policies require aiding and abetting children who think they may be the opposite sex.
As seen in the Salinas, California, example, many teacher associations, teachers and school boards are all-in. Willing counselors quickly diagnose young people with “gender dysphoria” and start (push) them down the disastrous path of erasing their identity.
The so-called treatments gender professionals recommend for children are hideous and barbaric: disrupt normal adolescent development with puberty-blocking drugs, inject anabolic steroids (cross-sex hormones) and, finally, butcher healthy body parts—genital removal for boys and mastectomies for girls. Most of the damage is irreversible and all of it is unnecessary.
It’s vital to stand up for parental rights, to question indoctrination in schools, and to protect children. We’ll see examples of courageous people saying “enough,” fighting back and winning. But first, a look at how transgender identity activists employ cultural Marxist strategies.
Marxist Goals: Devalue, dehumanize and destroy The cultural Marxist goals are to devalue, dehumanize and destroy. The trans ideology advances these goals in several ways.
Devalue women—Suggesting men become women by a verbal declaration, “I feel like a woman,” cheapens the inherent, exquisite differences between men and women. Honoring men who “identify as women” with women’s milestone designations, such as “first female four-star admiral,” devalues women and their accomplishments.
Devalue precious children: Affirming children as the opposite sex devalues who they genuinely are. Telling a child they should adopt a “new identity” in the opposite gender sends a message that something is wrong with their innate identity, that it is so terrible that it needs to be eradicated.
Dehumanize, punish, silence: The woke mob dehumanizes and viciously attacks those who break the ever-shifting rules and demands harsh punishment to ruin the offenders. Questioning that men can become women or that men can give birth, for example, triggers the mob and name-calling ensues. Parents who speak up in defense of their children are labeled “domestic terrorists.” Women who speak up in defense of women’s spaces are demeaned as “TERFs,” a derogatory term meaning “trans-exclusionary radical feminists.”
Destroy parental rights and student safety: Schools and school boards keep information from parents, such as allowing children to use different names and pronouns, wear different clothing and use restrooms of the opposite sex without alerting their parents. In Loudoun County, Virginia, a male who identified as female assaulted a female student and the school district covered it up.
Destroy women’s sports: Men identifying as women compete in female athletics, and due to their superior strength unjustly steal opportunities that rightfully belong to women.
Showing up and speaking out Many are speaking out against the devalue, dehumanize and destroy tactics.
Former USA Swimming official Cynthia Millen resigned in protest to a biological male swimmer dominating the women’s competition and boldly stated the simple biological truth: “Bodies swim against bodies. Gender identities don’t swim. [He] is a man who is swimming against women.” Teammates have complained privately to the coach. Parents have written a letter urging the National Collegiate Athletic Association to change its rules on transgender athletes.
In Loudoun County, Virginia, parents have banded together and filed Freedom of Information requests to unearth what the school board did to cover up the student’s assault. Across the country, parents are showing up to school board meetings to hold schools accountable.
Celebrities are taking heat, too. J. K. Rowling, author of the “”Harry Potter” series, pointed out the Orwellian absurdity of incarcerating a sex offender with intact male genitalia in a women’s prison simply because he identifies as a woman. For that, she said in a recent post on Twitter, “I’ve now received so many death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped speaking out.”
The Marxist tactics disguised as transgender policies are a cancer infecting our entire culture, with schoolchildren as the prime targets. Thank goodness that concerned parents and celebrities are speaking out against the damage being done.
Bravo to the brave souls willing to go against the mob. Their selfless example is an inspiration to all and deserves to be imitated. Every voice matters.
The European Court of Human Rights has rejected a case brought by lawyers for Gareth Lee, a gay-rights advocate in the United Kingdom who had triggered a years-long fight with a bakery when its Christian owners declined to support his agenda.
The Christian Institute reported that the European court dismissed the case because he had not raised those issues of international rights while the case was in the courts of the U.K.
The Institute, which supported the bakery, Ashers, owned by the McArthur family, explained the case erupted in 2014 when Lee ordered a cake promoting homosexuality. The bakery’s Christian owners replied that they could not promote a message with which they disagreed, and refunded his money.
He then complained to the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland, which started an action against the bakery.
After years of depositions, arguments and hearings, the U.K. Supreme Court in 2018 “found in Ashers favor, recognizing the family’s objection was ‘to the message, not to the man.'”
The case was pushed up to the ECHR after that ruling.
But in its decision, the court ruled the application to be heard was “inadmissible” and that Lee was asking the court to “usurp the role of the domestic courts.”
The Equality Commission had dropped out of the case by then, and Lee’s appeal was managed by “same-sex marriage campaigner activist lawyer Ciaran Moynagh of Belfast-based firm Phoenix Law,” the Institute reported.
Moynagh claimed the U.K. decision “created legal uncertainty.”
Simon Calvert, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, said, “The U.K. Supreme Court engaged at length with the human rights arguments in this case and upheld the McArthurs’ rights to freedom of expression and religion. It was disappointing to see another attempt to undermine those rights, so it is a relief that the attempt has failed.”
He continued, “I’m surprised anyone would want to overturn a ruling that protects gay business owners from being forced to promote views they don’t share, just as much as it protects Christian business owners.”
In fact, had the opposite conclusion been reached, a homosexual baker could have been forced to create products quoting the Old Testament’s condemnations of homosexuality.
Or a Jewish baker could have been forced to promote a Nazi theme. Or a Muslim baker could have been forced the promote a pork-themed product.
Calvert said, “The ruling in October 2018 by five of the country’s most distinguished and experienced judges was welcomed by lawyers, commentators and free speech experts from across the spectrum. They all knew of the implications for freedom of speech and religion, had the decision gone against Ashers. This could have included a Muslim printer being forced to print cartoons of Mohammed, or a lesbian-owned bakery being forced to make a cake describing gay marriage as an ‘abomination’.”
Lee’s lawyers had claimed “his rights were interfered with by a public authority – the Supreme Court – by its decision to dismiss his claim for breach of statutory duty to provide services, and that the interference was not proportionate.”
WND reported when the appeal was launched, the Institute explained, “The ruling last fall from the U.K. Supreme Court said, ‘Nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.'”
Lower courts in the U.K. had ruled against Ashers, but the attorney general for Northern Ireland, John Larkin, argued in court on behalf of the bakery.
“Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion,” he wrote.
“It pains me to say this, as a long-time supporter of the struggle for LGBT equality in Northern Ireland, where same-sex marriage and gay blood donors remain banned. The equality laws are intended to protect people against discrimination. A business providing a public service has a legal duty to do so without discrimination based on race, gender, faith and sexuality.
“However, the court erred by ruling that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions. … His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order,” he wrote
Senior Chief Logistics Specialist Christopher Rodriguez reads a bible at Naval Weapons Station Earle chapel in Colts Neck, New Jersey, on March 10, 2021. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Diana Quinlan)
The LGBT movement, if it is successful in its campaign to persuade governments to restrict what is said about the same-sex agenda, eventually will target even the gospel of Jesus Christ as told in the Bible, warns a key Christian leader.
“Let’s just state the obvious. If the government can tell you it is illegal to teach biblical truth on the issue of human sexuality, the array of LGBT issues, understand two things. Number one, it won’t stop with LGBT and understand, eventually it means the criminalization of whatever Christian speech is no longer politically attractive. And that eventually will mean everything that is revealed in scripture, most essentially, the gospel of Jesus Christ,” warned Albert Mohler, in an online column.
Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention, continued, “Right now in this turning point between 2021 and 2022, we see the shape of the challenge coming to the Christian church even more clearly, or even more ominously. We are about to find out where the biblical Christians are on both sides of the Atlantic, and as you and I know, on both sides of the American/Canadian border.”
The Christian Institute, citing his comments, noted his reference to bans in both the U.K. and the U.S. on “conversion “therapy.”
Multiple local governments have banned that, contending that it can harm patients if counselors explain to them alternatives to adopting and endorsing same-sex or transgender ideologies.
In some locations, the agenda-driven laws have left it illegal to counsel someone against a same-sex relationship, but allows them to be counseled toward that activity.
The institute warned the Mohler’s comments come as a proposal is coming in Canada to ban “conversion therapy” and similar proposals are being considered in the U.K. and Ireland.
He explained how that ideology contradicts the Bible’s plain teaching that God “made us male and female and he gave us the unalterable rules of human sexual behavior and conduct.”
The result is that LGBT activists don’t simply want a change in the law on a single issue, but they also are wanting to “criminalize and sanction and make illegal any confrontation on biblical terms of their own new morality.”
The result could be restrictions in pulpits, and even what conversations parents have with their children.
Mohler explained those pursuing the radical ideology state, “Look, you simply have to take the issue of orientation as if it is morally neutral. Any orientation is as good as any other orientation.”
That’s evident, he said, from proposals in both Canada and Britain.
“But let’s get to the biggest issue of Christian concern, these particular bills could have the effect of chilling the preaching, restricting the liberty of the pulpit in Christian churches, and even could extend to potentially criminalizing personal conversations and even outlawing certain kinds of conversations between parents and children,” he said.
“It is happening. And we have seen this coming. We’ve seen this issue, this challenge taking shape, and you see now the fact that many who are writing what they consider to be and claim to be a platform of sexual liberation are not only calling for a change in the laws, they’re not only changing the entire society, they want to criminalize and sanction and make illegal any confrontation on biblical terms of their own new morality.”
He warned the legislation in Canada, which is taking effect this week, explicitly states that anything suggesting a chosen LGBT lifestyle “is in any way inferior” to heterosexual standards is “a myth.”
“But the bigger threat is, of course, that this will be extended throughout society, inexorably, unavoidably, to every other context, including Christian institutions, Christian organizations, and even Christian churches. This is legislation that no one in Canada wants to admit is directed to the pulpit, but make no mistake, it’s directed to the pulpit,” he said.
And parents, he said.
“This is a new morality, which now comes with not only the persuasive power of the government of the state, but now with the coercive power of the state, even criminalization. The legislation in Canada is genuinely radical and that’s a matter of pride for Canada’s liberal government whose justice minister, David Lametti, said in a statement, ‘The consensus demonstrated by parliamentarians in Canada is part of an emerging global consensus surrounding the real and lifelong harms for conversion therapy victims and survivors. In fact, with these changes to the criminal code,’ he said, ‘Canada’s criminal laws on conversion therapy are among the most comprehensive in the world,'” he wrote.
“What happens when a young person, or age is in this case not necessarily important, but let’s say a young person goes to talk to a Christian counselor, that Christian counselor, according to this legislation, is not legally able even to discuss in biblical terms the sexual orientation issue or how that would apply in Christian holiness to our understanding of biblical morality and God’s intention for Christians living out the Christian life,” he said.
It won’t be long before Christian teachers are “brought up on charges,” he warned.
In the U.K., the plan is to make it illegal to start therapy from the point that being LGBT is wrong.
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.
Michael Foust | ChristianHeadlines.com Contributor | Thursday, April 1, 2021
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.
“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.”
Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, The Christian Post, the Leaf-Chronicle, the Toronto Star andthe Knoxville News-Sentinel.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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 here, here 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.
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.