Understanding Transgenderism – Part 6

[podlove-episode-web-player publisher="1368" post_id="1368"]

There are a number of ways that adopting another gender can appear therapeutic–that it soothes some of the hurt of severe alienation. But is the best explanation for this experience the assertion that one really is another gender? Can our feelings really determine our identity? Or is there another option that makes a whole lot more sense?

After all, if a boy who thinks he’s a girl is really a girl… then what does “girl” actually mean?

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk
Part 2: https://youtu.be/sU69EpFR830
Part 3: https://youtu.be/yjA92Pno9v8
Part 4: https://youtu.be/sTtG6U9pePM
Part 5: https://youtu.be/UmZh3WP2cfQ

Referenced:
I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/10/i-was-americas-first-non-binary-person-it-was-all-a-sham/
Ex-transgender Man Now Wants to Live as Sexless Alien: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/ex-transgender-man-now-wants-14071689

Related:
Transgenderism Eats its own Tail: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=778

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

Disgusting Things Ought to Disgust Us

About a year ago, I came across a rather nasty news story about a house in Iowa. Neighbors were complaining about the smell and eventually the police were called to investigate. As it turns out, there were dozens of cats in the house, some living, some not, and their waste had accumulated to a depth of roughly 6 inches throughout the home.

Even apart from obvious issues of health and animal welfare, situations like this are fundamentally disgusting. And everyone knows that it’s disgusting—its so revolting that absolutely everyone would recoil from living in a home like that.

Except… it’s not absolutely everyone. After all, at least one person was quite willing to live in such a disgusting manner—the homeowner who allowed the situation in the first place.

That’s the thing about disgust. It’s an incredibly useful feature of our innate emotional life that helps prevent our circumstances from devolving into all manner of wretchedness. But at the same time, it’s a feature that we train. Like shame, our sense of disgust is something that needs to be cultivated as we mature.

A well-formed person ought to be disgusted by disgusting things.  It’s entirely possible to become disgusted by something benign or positive (for example, just look at how so many of us see motherhood, fatherhood, and children in the West.) And, as we can see from the cat scenario, we can also be trained to become used to something that should be utterly revolting. How can someone live with 6 inches of cat feces covering the entire floor? It’s actually pretty simple: one turd at a time that they just didn’t think was worth cleaning up.

Why am I bringing this up? Because of something that we should find even more revolting than living in a house full of cat shit:

That is so disgusting that I feel soiled just having it on my blog. Unfortunately, words alone don’t do it justice, and the subject must be done justice because there are forces at work in our society trying to retrain our sense of disgust so that this kind of thing is accepted. And it happens exactly the same way as the cat house: one small turd at a time that people don’t want to bother cleaning up.

There are any number of ways they try to normalize this grotesquery. One of the most recent examples is “Drag Queen Story Time” cropping up at libraries across the nation—including my own local library this weekend. These are “family friendly” performances in which an adult cross-dressing degenerate does an exotic dance in front of a roomful of kids while their abusive parents encourage them to give the dancer money. This is accompanied by mass media fawning over children who follow perverted examples because they were praised for doing so by the very people who were responsible for them. And, of course, there’s the constant cry of “BIGOT! HATER!” against anyone who dares point out what anyone with an un-seared conscience knows.

This retraining of disgust is the same purpose behind the massive over-representation of LGBT characters in film and television. It’s the reason every new character in the Arrowverse needs to be gay. It’s the reason the guy in Capt. America’s support group in Avenger’s Endgame needed to be gay. It’s the reason My Little Pony needed gay ponies. And, of course, this was all preceded by the normalization of all manner of fornication and the vilification of natural family through the same means.

None of this is accidental. It’s precisely how “grooming” works for pedophiles. They try to get their targets used to small actions they would ordinarily find disgusting so that when they finally act, the child’s revulsion doesn’t reflexively kick in and interfere until its too late. Right now, the Spirit of the Age is grooming both children and parents at the same time. It wants the kids growing up thinking disgusting things are normal. It also wants the parents to back off from our God-given responsibility to train and attune our children’s innate sense of disgust towards disgusting things. It makes sure our kids are exposed to a constant diet of perversion while making parents so scared of being seen as pearl-clutching bigots that we fail to do anything about it.

Parents, you cannot afford to step aside. This will not pass you or your family by.  Whether you stand alone or with others, you need to know what is going on and refuse to submit to it no matter how loudly people scream “bigot” at you.  Do not let it pile up so deeply in your children’s lives that you all become used to it.

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
-1 Peter 5:8-10

Posted in Christian Youth, Culture, Family, Politics | Leave a comment

Understanding Transgenderism – Part 5

[podlove-episode-web-player publisher="1363" post_id="1363"]

We all want to be part of something greater than ourselves–to have a place where we truly fit as individuals, but which also transcends us as individuals. Unfortunately, for the past few generations, we have been deliberately destroying the most common ways that most of mankind has historically found that kind of identity. One cannot truly understand the attempt to find identity in opposite or invented genders without first understanding this broader crisis of identity in the West.

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk
Part 2: https://youtu.be/sU69EpFR830
Part 3: https://youtu.be/yjA92Pno9v8
Part 4: https://youtu.be/sTtG6U9pePM

Related:
Between Babel & Pentecost – A Christian Analysis of Multiculturalism:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcZRo9Rv_Y&list=PLX6FbF_kC8FA44_ewZRw8l7kdqk9Y5fZY
A Self-Imposed Poverty of Identity:  https://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=1259

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

The Violinist Lives

It takes a special kind of person to go all-in on supporting abortion even after recognizing it as deliberately killing an innocent human being. I’ve recently seen one such example passed around Twitter like a bad case of herpes. In it, feminist Sophie Lewis argues for abortion on the grounds that it releases women from enforced “gestational work.” Abortion is killing, she admits, but it’s a justified killing due to “the violence that, innocently, a foetus metes out vis-a-vis a gestator.” She proposes that the “gestator” who doesn’t want to keep doing that work should be able to quit her job or go on strike. The argument is part of a promotional snippet for her new book, Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family (as though there were ever any other kind of feminism.)

It’s certainly vile, but there’s nothing new about this argument–that an unborn child is a violent aggressor who can be treated as such. At the very least, it least goes back to the “violinist argument” made by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1971 who suggested the following analogy:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. . . . To unplug you would be to kill him. But… it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

The point of this analogy is that, just like a person would be justified in unplugging the violinist from her body because his right to live does not require her to serve as an external kidney, a person would be justified in aborting an unborn child who has no right to live by parasitically using his mother as a host. As revolting as it may be, this kind of argument is particularly compelling to libertarians and others who place great value on personal autonomy—basically those who bury their heads so far up the non-aggression principle that they can no longer discern what counts as aggression.

As an argument, it fails because it’s not a particularly good analogy. Its most damning error is to conflate the relationship between a mother and her child with the relationship between two strangers–you and a random violinist. Lewis makes exactly the same mistake when she renders “a mother and her child” in Newspeak as “a foetus and its gestator.” Strangers have a certain kind of responsibility towards one another, but it does not require the kind of lengths necessitated by the violinist’s situation. That would just be slavery. Mothers, on the other hand, have a much more robust set of responsibilities toward their own children, such as caring for, nourishing, and protecting them. When a mother rejects such responsibilities, we rightly call it neglect or abandonment.  Just as a mother does not have the freedom to eject a toddler from her home as an intruder, neither does she have the freedom to eject an even younger child from her womb—the only means by which she can fulfill her responsibilities before birth.

Although the argument remains garbage, it’s nevertheless worth considering what could lead a person into such mental and spiritual poverty that she could mistake a mother and child for strangers in the first place.

The stereotypical Puritan was supposedly a prude scandalized by the gritty details of sexual activity. Sex was a necessary evil for the continuation of the human race, but otherwise it was dirty, unnatural, and ought to be done through a hole in the sheets. There was never much truth to that caricature, but ironically, many who mock those alleged prudes have become prudes themselves. They may not see illicit sex acts as anything to ashamed of, but when it comes to the natural consequences of those acts, they recoil. They have become so scandalized at the thought that sex is procreative that it brings to mind an seven-year-old boy saying, “Babies come from where? Ew, that’s gross!”

The disgust with which these people view human nature is palpable. How else could one envision the womb as a nightmarish medical contraption straight out of a horror movie? How else could one view her own unborn son or daughter as a violent slave-driver simply for needing to be with their mother? From extreme examples like this, to everyday high school health classes which treat pregnancy as just another STD to protect oneself against, it’s the same sad story. The thought of a human life growing inside a woman as a result of intercourse and being nourished directly by her body has become something from which people turn away in disgust. Like the stereotypical prude, if such people had been involved in human design, they no doubt would have come up with a more sterile and convenient means of reproduction—perhaps something akin to what we read in Brave New World, in which humans are manufactured rather than conceived, born, and raised.

In the end, that very notion of design becomes the crux of the matter. Once we deny the idea of God deliberately designing the family, we eventually lose the idea that there is anything special about familial relationships except whatever we project onto them. And as we  grow ever more terminally selfish as a culture, we’re less likely to recognize any such value at all. If humanity as we know it happened to emerge through wholly arbitrary processes, the relationship between a mother and a child is really just a chance occurrence. It would have no more moral force than a a relationship between strangers.

Nevertheless, such a nihilistic perspective is a double-edged sword. If one accepts that the relationship between a mother and her child is sufficiently arbitrary or meaningless to preclude responsibilities, then surely the relationship between strangers loses such significance as well. Strangers are oriented to each other even more arbitrarily than a mother and child. And yet, even the violinist argument is founded on the ideas that the violinist does not have a right to treat a stranger in a particular way and that the person to whom he is attached does have a right to respond in a certain way. But why? If even a child can be disposed of by its own mother for her sake, then why can’t the subject of the argument be disposed of by the violinist for his own sake? If human life is without any value except its utility and desirability, then we are all merely consumable resources for the strong, and the actions of the violinist and the Society of Music Lovers are just as appropriate as those of vampires like Lewis.

It all seems like a high price to pay simply for the convenience of murdering our own children.

Posted in Abortion, Apologetics, Ethics | Leave a comment

Understanding Transgenderism – Part 4

[podlove-episode-web-player publisher="1355" post_id="1355"]

As we talked about last time, faithfulness to God’s word prevents Christians from adopting transgender philosophy as an explanation for boys who think they’re girls and girls who think they’re boys. What then are the alternatives explanations for us to consider for these experiences?

Mental illness may play its role for some, but it would be dismissive to stop there as though that explains everything–it’s certainly not why the transgender explanation is so compelling to so many. But the movement begins to make more sense when you consider the possibility that for many people, transgenderism is becoming a coping mechanism for a variety of feelings of social alienation.

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk
Part 2: https://youtu.be/sU69EpFR830
Part 3: https://youtu.be/yjA92Pno9v8

Referenced Articles:
Explosive Ivy League Study Repressed For Finding Transgender Kids May Be A Social Contagion: https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/31/explosive-ivy-league-study-repressed-for-finding-transgender-kids-may-be-a-social-contagion/

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

Loving Our Enemies Does Not Excuse Us from Loving Our Friends

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Matthew 23:23

There is no question that Jesus has commanded his Church to love her enemies. So it is great that so many Christians try to find more and more ways of doing so. What isn’t so great–and is in fact quite shameful–is that Christians are increasingly failing to love their friends, family, nation, and one another.

For example, right now, the big push from the World is for the praise of various forms of sexual confusion and depravity. There is a great pretense of oppression against the LGBTetc crowd, despite dozens of major companies falling all over themselves to affirm them, the systematic suppression of all criticism of them in our schools and universities, and the universal acclamation they receive from Hollywood in pretty much every film and television show they make. Despite how silly these claims of oppression are in 2019, most Christians nevertheless seem to believe them and try to find ways to compensate. Even among Christians who actually believe Jesus’ teachings on sexuality, the goal is often to relieve the supposed oppression and to be more and more welcoming.

In itself, reaching out is by no means a bad thing–at least inasmuch as our goal is to actually be loving rather than to simply be seen as loving. After all, we should be no less welcoming towards sinners than Christ was. But there is an ugly flip-side to the way this goal is now carried out. The Bible still teaches what it teaches. It condemns sodomy in no uncertain terms. It consistently affirms gender integrity. The Church likewise still has the God-given responsibility to teach what the Bible teaches. And, of course, the world will still react to the Church doing what it’s supposed to be doing precisely the way Jesus promised it would–with hatred and persecution.

In the face of this, some Christians are so devoted to being welcoming above all else that they are tempted to see the World’s promised reaction as evidence of our failure rather than of our faithfulness. It is here that many Christians actually begin to devour their brothers and sisters. They might not go so far as to deny what the Bible teaches (though many do), but they’ll always find ways to attack those who repeat it. They start playing tone police–finding insensitivity everywhere so that no preaching of God’s Word proves tepid enough to be inoffensive–and condemn any Christian who speaks out as unloving. When their brothers and sisters come under fire, they will distance themselves instead of standing with them–making sure the World knows that they’re not one of those Christians. Some will even go so far as to obsequiously apologize for God’s Word and thereby impugn the faithful for the crime of believing it. When those who speak out are fired from their jobs, disowned by their families, and taken to court, they remain silent except to pour salt on their wounds by claiming that it never would have happened if they had been sufficiently sensitive and loving in the first place. In so doing, we feed one another to the Spirit of the Age. We try so hard to love our enemies that we fail to love one another as Christ commanded us.

A similar pattern can be seen among Christians when it comes to our responsibilities in the left-hand kingdom–caring for our families, neighbors, and countrymen according to our vocations. The current big push from the World here is to embrace unfettered immigration. And Christians, of course, know that God has called us to be hospitable and to love the foreigner among us. Unfortunately, too many Christians syncretistically mire God’s instructions with the World’s imperative and begin to denounce any and all attempts to maintain our nation’s borders as unloving.

I’ve written and spoken about this at length, so here, I’ll be quick and to the point: Taking this approach towards mass migration is hatred toward your own nation. Deliberately dissolving your borders is effectively burning down your own heritage and people–the very neighbors whom God has placed into your care–on behalf of foreigners. Historically speaking, in virtually every case, mass migration has eventually resulted in mass bloodshed. Sometimes it’s the blood of the migrants, sometimes of the natives, and often both. Accordingly, if we are to love both our countrymen and foreigners–as God has commanded us–then the loving solution is to deliberately limit migration and thereby prevent that bloodshed. Far from a border wall being a symbol of oppression, good fences actually make good neighbors. When Christians fail to realize this grim reality of life in a fallen world, we end up trying so hard to love the alien among us that we fail to love our families, neighbors, and countrymen.

The takeaways for Christians here is that loving your enemies was never a substitute for loving your friends and that loving the foreigner was never a substitute for loving your neighbors. Take a closer look at the Sermon on the Mount quoted above. Look at the reason Jesus gives for saying that loving those who love you and greeting your brothers isn’t a credit to us. It’s no credit because even the gentiles and tax collectors do those things. In other words, everybody–even the rawest pagan–knows that he’s supposed to take care of his family, his tribe, and the fellow-worshipers of his gods. Everybody knows this… except for contemporary Christians. Oh, we’re often quite pious about loving our enemies, but when it comes to the absolute bare minimum of love that even unbelievers have figured out through natural law… well, there we stumble; and it’s absolutely shameful. We would do well to let Christ examine us:

Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, “Honor your father and your mother,” and “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” But you say, “If anyone tells his father or his mother, ‘What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Matthew 15:3b-9

Loving our enemies sets Christians apart, but it is not the beginning of our love.  Do we really think loving our enemies is to our credit when we fail to love even our brothers? Do we really think that maintaining the World’s latest traditions is an excuse for failing our most basic God-given responsibilities? Of course we should love our enemies! But this we ought to have done without neglecting the other.

Posted in Christian Nationalism, Culture, The Modern Church | Leave a comment

Understanding Transgenderism – Part 3

[podlove-episode-web-player publisher="1347" post_id="1347"]

Having learned in Part 2 how recently the concept of gender was invented, it’s no surprise that it’s entirely alien to Scripture. But from start to finish, the Bible both affirms the deep meaning of male and female biology and deliberately establishes what we would call gender roles. However much our culture demands and coerces, Christians cannot adopt the philosophy behind transgenderism while still remaining faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk
Part 2: https://youtu.be/sU69EpFR830

Related:
Do We Really Need More Women Leaders in the Church: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=1145

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

St. Augustine on Calling Evil Good and Good Evil

Woe to those that call evil good, and good evil!

The Lord’s warning given through Isaiah is surely apropos for our own time, given the cultural and spiritual forces which confront Christians in the West. I was recently reminded of it as I began to read St. Augustine’s Enchiridion, in which he lays out what he sees as the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Isaiah’s condemnation comes up in the beginning when Augustine considers the doctrine of Creation and the goodness of the Creator. God calls what he has made “very good,” and yet ever since the Fall, we encounter evil in this world. Now, for Augustine, of course, evil is merely a corruption or privation of good. Evil does not have its own existence the way good does. In a nutshell, only God creates; God created everything that exists; and God calls it very good. Evil is not a part of God’s creation. On the contrary, every evil thing is a good thing that’s been somehow spoiled–made less than it was created to be. Inasmuch as it exists, it’s good, but inasmuch as it is disordered, it’s evil. Augustine explains:

We must, however, beware of incurring the prophetic condemnation: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” And yet our Lord says: “An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil.” Now, what is an evil man but an evil being? For man is a being. Now, if a man is a good thing because he is a being, what is an evil man but an evil good? Yet, when we accurately distinguish these two things, we find that it is not because he is a man that he is an evil, or because he is wicked that he is good; but that he is a good because he is a man, and an evil because he is wicked. Whoever, then, says, “To be a man is an evil,” or, “To be wicked is a good,” falls under the prophetic denunciation: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil!” For he condemns the work of God, which is the man, and praises the defect of man, which is the wickedness.

It is precisely this reversal which afflicts our culture today, for we are deliberately losing our ability to discern order from disorder. Nowhere is this more apparent today than in our embrace of the LGBT movement.

Going all the way back to Genesis 1, the first thing God says about man is that he would be made in God’s own image. The text goes on to explain, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” As it turns out, being made male and female is a key part of how man is made in God’s image. After all, God is Triune–three Persons but one Substance. Man is much the same way. We are all individual persons, and yet as Adam says of his wife: “This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” A man and his wife are two persons, but one flesh.  But it doesn’t end there, for the very first blessing & command that God gives to his new creation is to be fruitful and multiply.  And so a third person proceeds from that marital union who also shares his parents’ flesh and blood.  That is the fundamental purpose of the sexes in mankind: marriage and consequent family as a living symbol of the eternal love of the Triune God. And God calls it “very good.”

It follows from this that disorders of the sexes are that which inhibit this purpose. And the disorders are legion. Certainly we would first and foremost include sins like adultery, fornication, and sodomy–in which we deliberately act contrary to God’s creation and, in effect, spray graffiti on God’s self-portrait. But it is just as clear that the consequences of living in a fallen world are disorders. We encounter evils of infertility, of sexual dysfunction, of genital deformities, of same-sex attraction, and countless others. These are not sins anymore than heart defects, cleft palettes, or cancer are. Nevertheless, through mankind’s sins, we have corrupted this world, and in many respects it no longer functions according to design. We have made it less than what God has designed it to be, and these disorders are the consequences of that Fall into sin.

These are simply a small selection of the things we must endure as we live in this world. And God can bring good out of all these things and more, for he created all things that have being in the first place. As Christ said of the man born blind, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” God redeems the evils and sufferings of this world according to His own good purpose. Evil cannot impede Him.

The deadly problem is when we take these disorders and found our identities on them–confuse the disorders with our very beings and pretend that the corruption is nothing of the sort. In doing so, we deny God’s declaration that what He created is good. We cannot have faith in one whom we denounce as a liar, nor can we ultimately believe his promises.

The evil of the LGBT movement is not the existence of LGBT people. After all, as Augustine would put it, they are good precisely because they are beings–God made them, and He made them good. Neither is it simply the fact of the disorders of same-sex attractions and gender confusion which they experience. These are evils, to be sure–corruptions and privations of good–but they are conditions rather than moral indictments (just as things like infertility or erectile dysfunction are.) No, the fundamental evil of the movement is the deliberate determination to call evil good and good evil. To condemn the work of God in his creation of man as male and female, and to instead praise and revel in the defects thereof which inhibit us from being fruitful as He commanded us.

And to be clear, this kind of thinking is not unique to the LGBT movement. For example, some in the deaf community find their identity in their lack of hearing–to the point that they are offended when Jesus heals the deaf in the Gospels. How dare he steal their identity away from them! In so doing, they bless the disorder and call evil the hearing for which God first created ears.

Neither did it begin with the LGBT movement. These activists were preceded by generations of “cishet” Westerners who denounced chastity as a burden, marriage as a prison, and children as punishment. None of the LGBT propaganda would be in any way compelling had we not already laid down this foundation of selfishness and depravity on which the activists now build. All the same, they are currently embodying the zeitgeist among those who openly condemn God’s creative work and praise its corruption. They are the ones who  actively single themselves out by claiming disorder as their identity. The church does not get to choose which errors its confronted by, and so we are compelled to respond to this movement.

We are so compelled because this kind of thinking is the great Lie condemned by Isaiah. It is also the first deception of Satan–that God has withheld goodness from us through his Law, but that we can recover that goodness by defying Him and resisting his design. When we believe the Lie, we put ourselves in a vicious cycle in which we must pursue ever greater denunciations of good in order to preserve our own evil. After all, anyone who hopes to believe a rotten apple is fresh must first banish any fresh apples from his sight–one way or another. This progression is what Paul describes in Romans 1:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made…

…Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling moral man and birds and animals and creeping things…

…Though they know God’s decree that that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

So they are without excuse. And so also, we are without excuse, for we also sin against God. For all of us who have broken God’s Laws and therefore deserve death, salvation does not come from believing the Lie. It does not come from undoing creation or unwriting God’s Law. It does not come by calling evil good and good evil. Salvation comes only through faith in Christ, the One who redeemed us from evil by his blood and created a new, good life within us through his Resurrection.

Repent of the Lie. Believe in the Logos.

Posted in Chastity, Culture, Ethics, Natural Law, Theology | Leave a comment

Understanding Transgenderism – Part 2

[podlove-episode-web-player publisher="1341" post_id="1341"]

The proposition that a person can change their gender–the social expression of biological sex–regardless of that sex depends not only on the distinction, but the separation of gender from biology. But where did this idea of gender come from, why was it developed, and how has it evolved?

On this episode of Lutheran in a Strange Land, we take a brief look at the history of gender as a concept.

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk

Related:
A Brief History of Gender: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=969

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: https://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

Preying on Historical Ignorance

So did you know that Christians have only opposed abortion for about 40 years? Yeah. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else familiar with Church history.

But I had recently seen the view expressed in a tweet without thinking too much of it, and then a few days later, someone sent me a couple of blog posts by Fred Clark at Slacktivist. So apparently there really are people trying to push this narrative.

In the older one, Clark contends that

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

It’s rather pitiful, to be frank. Clark’s arguments here are what happen when somebody who is completely ignorant of church history hears some unexpected & salacious factoids but isn’t intellectually competent enough to understand them in a historical context. Clark points to a few institutions and a theologian who have changed their opinions on the subject since the 60’s, insinuates without evidence that it’s all due to acute peer pressure, and… well, that’s about it.

Of course, since the Church is 2000 years old, one can’t just look back half a century and call it a day. As it turns out, the anti-abortion stance of the Church did not spring fully formed from American Evangelicalism’s forehead in the late 20th century–it is literally as old as the Church. For example, the Didache (a first century ethical catechism of sorts that is one of the oldest extant Christian writings that isn’t part of the New Testament) explicitly forbids abortion. You see the same thing in early theologians like Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Tertullian, as well as others, with many of them citing the same Biblical passages that people cite today. (Some handy references can be found here and here.) The pro-fertility and anti-abortion stances of the early church are remarkable enough (and profoundly different enough from Roman paganism) that I’ve even seen some historians argue that these stances heavily contributed to the rise of Christianity in its first few centuries because they out-bred their contemporaries.

The other “older-than-50-years” factor to consider is the too-slowly simmering conflict with Theological Liberalism that was coming to a boil in many protestant denominations at the time in question. This was a heretical movement that was started among elite academics in the 19th Century, and it took some time before it truly started filtering down from the elites to the people in the pews. In the 60’s and 70’s, many Christians were waking up to a pair of unpleasant facts: A) The movement was blatantly heretical, and B) it already dominated many of their own seminaries and ecclesial structures.

A considerable shakeup resulted within many churches and denominations, to say the least. Some fought to take back their ecclesial institutions. Some split off to found new ones. And yes, sometimes church policies on abortion changed during those upheavals. But this wasn’t due to some heretofore unknown theology on abortion being imposed by the Moral Majority. This was due to Protestantism sorting itself into ranks over a variety of issues related to Theological Liberalism. Christians who adhered more to orthodoxy gravitated towards evangelical churches while those who instead held to Theological Liberalism gravitated towards the mainline denominations. Naturally, the former were much more likely to be pro-life while the latter were much more likely to be pro-abortion.  Just as naturally, the cultures of those two sets of churches diverged as well.

Even more laughable is the newer piece of the two about an anecdote from Clark’s childhood. He remembers a women’s prayer group being very leery about a woman with a troubled pregnancy going to a Roman Catholic hospital. Their fear was that the doctors there would sacrifice the life of the mother in order to continue the pregnancy at all costs. Clark therefore concludes that valuing the mother’s life was entirely acceptable until Ronald Reagan and Francis Schaeffer teamed up to banish such concern from Evangelical churches with fire and sword.

But however Clark uses his ravings to rhetorically dress it up as concern for the mother cruelly transforming into an imagined non-concern, what he describes are essentially ladies expressing the view that abortion is permissible when the mother’s life is at stake (with a sizable dose of the typical anti-Roman sentiment of the time putting its own spin on that expression.) Unfortunately for Clark’s argument, that’s not even a transformation. Most pro-life people still agree with exceptions when the life of the mother is threatened by her pregnancy. It’s even in the great new abortion law in Alabama that the left hates so much. On the other hand, if one was to go back in time and ask typical Christians whether abortion was wonderful because of its primary purpose–facilitating promiscuity and fornication by eliminating the consequent children–I suspect he’d get an earful about another Christian doctrine that hasn’t really changed.

All the 1984 references are particularly ironic since Clark is the one revising history. But I suspect he doesn’t even realize that’s what he’s doing because he never bothered to look too closely at the subject in the first place. This whole bit of nonsense is just another attempt by “progressive Christians” to construct a new narrative about their relationship to Christ’s Church. Instead of heretical Theological Liberalism hijacking the Church’s institutions over the past century or two, they would prefer to believe that Christian orthodoxy was the real innovation–and that it was all Ronald Reagan’s fault somehow.

That sleight of hand might work for narrative thinkers or for the unfortunately growing ranks of Christians with little knowledge of their own Scriptures or history. Nevertheless, anyone who actually takes to heart Christ and his Apostles’ warnings about false teachers will think critically about it. And in so doing, they’ll compare the erroneous innovations of Theological Liberalism to God’s Word along with two thousand years worth of faithful Christians who did the same.  Those who do so will not be deceived.

Posted in Abortion, Apologetics, The Modern Church, Theological Liberalism | Leave a comment