This last week we spent some delightful time in Pittsburgh, as we attended the 25th annual conference of the ACCS. In the course of my plenary talk there, I said a few things about what our schools are facing now, and are going to be facing in the near future, now that the sexual revolution has evolved to the point where they have an office of the inquisition.
If you want the full context, you can look here. But in the course of my remarks, I said this:
When it comes to the LGBT/QRS foolishness, you must have titanium spines. The world will come to you and demand that you muddle up your binary bathroom situation. In vain you will explain to them that you can only have two bathroom signs—XX and XY—because your bathrooms are at the far end of the science wing.
The reporter will come right back at you—but what about that transgender student enrolled there at Classical Christian High? To which you will request the name of said student, so that you can promptly expel his ass.
I will have to check the tape to see if I really said that out loud.
Now this is what I am referring to. As Greg taught us this morning, what is a talk without a little provocation? If you have more of a problem with my robust manner of expression than you do with Metrosexual Classical Academy not expelling anyone’s hinderparts from that, um, community, you have what I am warning you about in a nutshell.
And when you fight the Greeks who that coming tumbling out of that horse, make sure you burn the horse, which is any kind of accommodation whatever with Darwin. Or anything that rhymes with Darwin.
After that talk I had an exchange with a very gracious Christian woman who was concerned about the abrupt and apparently calloused dismissal of a student struggling with his sexuality. She was kind enough to follow it up with a letter, and because I think there are likely others who share her concerns, I thought to say a few things about it here. But before proceeding further, I should say that her letter was a model of how to write such a letter. She mentioned a number of things from the talk she appreciated, she acknowledged in humility that she falls short of the standards she has for herself, and she came straight to me with her concerns.
In her letter, she said this: “I think what you said dishonored God and exhibited hate, not love, towards who Jesus has called us to love—namely, all people (‘God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life.’ John 3:16) . . . As your sister in Christ, I ask you to please not use that type of language, in particular concerning persons Christ died for (however they may treat us or our schools), for Jesus’ sake.”
For those who want to understand our project at a deeper level, here are some related links. There is a difference between apostles of the world and refugees from the world, the Scriptures provide us with the standard for what constitutes loving discourse, all of our cultural battles can be summed up as the battle for control of the dictionary, and the need of the hour is for Christians to become better at hating.
But even though she conducted herself with grace and poise, I do think there is a mistake at the heart of this, and that mistake is what I believe is crippling our efforts at effective resistance. Not only must we define male and female according to the Word, we must do the same thing with terms like hate and love. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Prov. 8:13). And so hatred is not defined by whether or not a person rebuked is offended by the rebuke. “One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.” And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also!” (Luke 11:45–46a, ESV). Oh, yeah, He said. I almost left out the lawyers.
So with all this said, I would point to the context of the particular kind of expulsion I was addressing in the talk. Your head of school is talking to a reporter, and the cameras are running. They are demanding that your school comply with all the gender confusion that characterizes our generation—your school’s bathrooms, your school’s locker rooms, etc. They are demanding that you bend to their wishes for the sake of the feelings of a particular transgender student. That is the set-up, and it is plain that what is going on is simple extortion. Your school must throw away Scripture, reason, tradition, and money, in that order, and you must do so for the sake of the feelings of this hypothetical transgender student. Well, then, I urged, let us make this extortion-racket student not hypothetical in order that we might expel his ass.
I was not talking about a quiet and diligent student who confessed to the Bible teacher in the course of a counseling session that he struggles with same sex attraction. What do you do there? The answer is as obvious as the love of Christ is. You pray with and for him, you meet with him, you work with him, you help him establish his walk with God, and so on. Not only am I acknowledging that this is the right thing to do in the abstract, this is in fact something I have done on numerous occasions. If you are ever foolish enough to google my name, you will find a pile of sludge. And one of the principal charges against me is that I minister to sexually disreputable people. I know, it is a strange, strange world.
But if this student starts to act out, if he hoists some rainbow version of the jolly roger, if he turns the grace of God into a license for state-sanctioned perversion, well, then. You expel his ass. And after you have done so, you minister the gospel of grace to him. Again, I am not talking hypotheticals here.
May I speak for a moment like the apostle Paul? May I be out of my mind for a moment to talk this way? Many of the people who think that I am unloving toward perverts—because I use words like perverts—have not paid a fraction of the price that I have paid in order to minister grace to such individuals. Not only have they not done so, they would not do so. Now some may reply that they do not vilify me because I minister to sexually bent people, but rather because they do not like how our ministry tastes after it has been boiled in that great cauldron of lies called Internet Discernment Ministries. But while I am happy to defend what I have done, I am not happy to defend what I am alleged to have done, and so perhaps we should just leave it there. But I do minister to sexually disreputable people, and have paid a significant price to do so.
I did hear from a lot of people about my talk, significantly more than usual, and the responses were overwhelmingly positive. This is because the value of such language is that it shows unapologetic fight, and it does so in an era when we absolutely need unapologetic fighters. This is not scurrilous name-calling, but rather a strategic call to arms.
In conclusion, many of those who are squeamish about challenging the Rabshekahs of the day are in fact squeamish because they don’t want any fighting to break out around their new townhouse, the one they just bought on the sunny side of Compromise Boulevard.
“Then three thousand men of Judah went to the top of the rock Etam, and said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us” (Judg. 15:11).
But by concluding on this note, I do not intend to place my correspondent in this compromised category at all. The Christian world would be a much better place if we all expressed our disagreements with the honesty and integrity that she did.
This is exactly why I read this blog.
That, and I have lots of retirement time on my hands.
But it isn’t just any old where that you read stuff like this:
Great clarifications.
Kudos to the Christian lady who took you to task so nicely. That’s awesome. I actually really appreciated your words because I find myself trapped in the midst of pride week (sponsored by the “faith” community) and also graduation were we are giving out awards and honoring those who have shown such great “courage” by challenging gender norms. So how do you get social approval, scholarships, support, open the doors to life and opportunity? You paint your toenails and grow your hair long and start speaking of being gender confused and a pansexual and persecuted. Nobody wants to talk about… Read more »
Secularism actually hates children. It seeks to kill them in the womb. They bless, so called marriages that are by definition fruitless. The ones who survive the offerings to Molech have to be taken from abusive parents who do things like teach them the world was created by God in 6 days. They have to be educated to believe they choose their gender and that all of their miseries are caused by Christians. They also teach them to degrade their bodies with sexual perversions. Now, I do admit that secularists might care about their own kids, but the ideology of… Read more »
I have sometimes thought I might persuade my son to apply to colleges as an albino Black transvestite lesbian so that he can go on being exactly what he is–a normal white guy–but still obtain all the free cash available from these loony bins of higher education for everyone EXCEPT normal white guys.
While I disagree almost entirely with your theology of sexuality, I do have to say that it makes little sense to me for people who disagree with you to then complain when you do within your own institutions what your theology requires you to do. That, to me, would be like moving into an Amish community and then complaining that they didn’t want me to use the Internet. While I consider their views quaint, those are their views, and my remedy is to find another community with views more akin to my own.
Oh how I wish this is how leftists responded. Unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite.
The problem you describe is hardly restricted to leftists; a lot of people all over the political spectrum seem to have trouble with the idea that other people who disagree with them have the same right to their choices and lifestyles. Gay people weren’t exactly left in peace and quiet back in the days when Christians were running the country, and eventually what goes around, comes around. That said, I’m fine with living in a country in which gays can marry but nobody is legally required to bake them a cake, where Episcopal priests perform gay weddings that Baptists refuse… Read more »
That said, I’m fine with living in a country in which… If only this were true. I don’t know you other than what you post, so my assumptions may be wrong. But I do suspect that you vote progressive. I suspect that you would support financially those who hold positions regarding sexuality that are secular in nature. I suspect you would do a number of things that back progressive ideologies. Those things have consequences. Over time, those consequences hurt my people. And actually gay people were largely left to their own perversions for a long time here in America. I… Read more »
It really is a zero sum game that requires, demands, some major push back. As much as I’d like to believe we can all “coexist and tolerate” one another, that isn’t what happens at all.
I realize that in practice there is pushback because almost no one is content to live and let live, but is there any reason there has to be pushback? To use my example, why can’t we have a society in which gays can marry but no one is required to make a cake for them?
Because that isn’t how it works. We can imagine a society like that, just like we can imagine a house with furniture nailed to the walls. But human nature is like gravity: the public square will have an altar in it, and the only relevant question is “to whom”? Gays go from legal autonomy to tyranny in about a week. That isn’t some random fluke, it’s how people are.
But much of the law consists of reining in human nature, so why is this any different?
Krychek_2 wrote: “But much of the law consists of reining in human nature, so why is this any different?” ………………………………………….. Another out of character comment from Krychek_2. In evolutionism, there is no human nature. There is only a continuum of change from one thing into the next thing. Attempts to pin down or assign any particular mode of existence are completely arbitrary. Acting contrary to some assumed “natural norm” may simply be a manifestation of moving on to the next thing. Krychek_2 can impose no fixed expectation or standard from which to “rein in” behaviors that the laws of matter… Read more »
Katecho, I have to give you credit: Every time I think you’ve said something so nonsensical that you can’t possibly top it, you prove me wrong.
Krychek_2 wrote:
Content-free responses like this are a loud testimony that Krychek_2 simply has no answer to the substance of his dilemma.
If Krychek_2 thinks I’ve said something nonsensical, he should try to make his case rather than just lob empty assertions.
No, Katecho, it’s a loud testimony that, having once answered you according to your folly, I am now following Proverbs’ recommendation to not answer a fool according to your folly. You wouldn’t want me to ignore a Biblical principle, would you?
Krychek_2 wrote:
If Krychek_2 had ever successfully answered the materialistic dilemma, he would be able to quote his answer for everyone to see.
Materialism structurally undermines any rational basis for expectation of any kind. Krychek_2’s repeated attempts at moral expectation have never recovered from this simple observation.
Krychek_2 can flop around and change the subject all he wants, but it’s not the same as actually addressing his problem of expectations.
Join the discussion
Sorta like: “you can’t legislate morality”?
wisdumb, not exactly. There is some overlap between law and morality. Murder is both immoral and a crime, and should be. Gossip is immoral but not a crime, and that’s right too. So I think the better statement is that you can legislate morality if the social harm it causes rises to the level of requiring a government solution.
All law is based on morality.
Kilgore, that depends on how broadly you define morality, and I don’t think I define it as broadly as you do. Traffic laws are mostly utilitarian; without them nobody would be able to get anywhere. One might argue that the desire for efficiency (and the positive benefits that result) is itself a moral value, but I’m not convinced; if you expand the definition of morality too far it ends up meaning everything and nothing.
Traffic laws are about not killing people with machines going really fast. It is absolutely a moral issue to make sure life is protected when we use machinery.
That is not utilitarian.
Laws cannot be utilitarian, because utilitarianism requires that we insert a goal for our utilitarian decisions. Laws are always moral.
Not killing people is one function of some traffic laws, but avoiding gridlock — which is purely utilitarian — is another. And there are utilitarian goals that can be inserted for our utilitarian decisions, like avoiding gridlock.
But what you’re really arguing is that any positive benefit is by definition moral, and that’s just wrong.
Krychek,
Change ‘social harm’ to social outrage and you would show the problem of democracy.
The question is if there is a moral standard that is absolute for all people at all times, and under all civil governments. If not, then we are free to form whatever laws we want. The problem then becomes: who has the most influence and power. And I’ll bet you’d agree that that is not what we want.
Wisdumb,I am loathe to quote Ayn Rand, but I think she was on to something when she said that the only moral command is “thou shalt think.” If you ask simple, thought-based questions like “What would happen if everybody did that” or “Does doing that make the world a better place or worse place” or “Would you be willing to live under the rule if yours was the minority world view”, then most moral dilemmas sort themselves out. Not completely, but the major issues really aren’t in dispute.
It’s different because you’re not talking law, you’re talking meta-law – the basis on which we make laws, which is essentially metaphysical and religious. Two people can disagree about religious dogma and still have a civil society together, provided they share a common metaphysical framework. American Protestants and Catholics are perhaps the best example I can think of, although even that is less than perfect harmony. But between two groups who reject and abominate the other’s metaphysics? Forget about it. To compromise you need something in common, and secularists and Christians haven’t got that. That kind of situation can only… Read more »
Have to take issue with your Catholic Protestant example. The only reason we are at peace now is that the Catholic position is in submission to the Protestant one. The issues that matter between us have been put away by the Catholics and the Protestants are busy fighting secularism.
If those factors were not in play, the Catholic and Protestant peace would dissolve.
Good point. Tolerance is a Protestant value, as the Reformation bitterly proved.
Dear Farinata, you cannot expect me to take this lying down. I am willing to concede that Catholic hands were bloodier than Protestant ones, but the Protestant movement has not always demonstrated saintly toleration. I will ignore the slaughters and persecution campaigns of various Protestant groups against one another. The Catholic slaughter of the Huguenots was wicked, but the Huguenots themselves developed quite a nice line of oppression, including pillaging Catholics’ houses and assassinating the Duc de Guise, leading to the second war of religion in France. William of Orange led an army of violent mercenaries who smashed and pillaged… Read more »
I didn’t think you would just let that go!
No, there was general violence. My point is that whereas Protestant countries managed to retain (or, in the case of America, accept) substantial Catholic minorities, the Catholic countries – Italy, France, Spain – basically drove out or murdered all their Protestants. Not that anyone was particularly tolerant. But it happened sometimes, to a limited extent, with Protestants.
What do you think those issues were, Kilgore? I am aware of a few issues about not wanting Catholic schools in some states, but I tended to believe that the problem in general was the fact that most Catholics were unwelcome as non-British immigrants. They came from nations that the Anglo-Celt majority viewed with suspicion and dislike. How much of that was specifically Catholic and how much was anti-immigrant sentiment? Viewing the issue on purely religious terms, I would have thought that the chief bone of contention would be Protestant suspicion that Catholics owed a higher loyalty to the pope… Read more »
Splitting the motivation between Catholic and anti-immigrant is missing the point. They were anti-immigrant, because they were largely Catholic, as well as Jewish. But we talked about this before. Papal supremacy is not a point upon which most Catholics are willing to go to bat. They believe it in their hearts and in their churches, but there it stays. Same with Maryology and the Eucharist. These are foundations doctrines to the Catholic Church, and openly untenable to any serious Protestant. There is harmonious relations right now, but that is because secularism is ascendant. In Canada, secularism is the dominant religion.… Read more »
I think you are largely accurate. Canadian Catholics strike me as more secular than their American counterparts. You are absolutely right that Catholics would get nowhere if they challenged the state on the primary moral issues. The accommodation that has been worked out allows Catholics to not ordain women, perform abortions in their hospitals, or hire remarried Catholics and gays in their schools, but that is probably as far as it goes. Strangely, it is possible to lead a vibrant Catholic spiritual life with very little conscious reference to the pope. Unless he is in the news, I go weeks… Read more »
But an agreement to live and let live *is* a metaphysical legal framework. A secularist who wants to marry a same sex partner does not impact you in the least. Your desire to live your life a certain way does not affect him in the least. The compromise is that each of you mind your own business on matters that don’t affect public health, safety and welfare.
But the problem is that even if it were desirable to have such metaphysical framework, it is observably (and logically) impossible. No-one actually believes it, not for things that matter. Can open homosexuals teach in public school? You might call that a live-and-let-live issue, but I don’t. I don’t want flagrantly wicked people in authority over my children. So what happens? Either people who believe like I do are excluded from the public sector, or the teacher is restricted as to what jobs he can hold. The metaphysics are mutually exclusive: gays aren’t willing to accept Christians treating them like… Read more »
A secularist might prefer that his children not be taught in public school by someone who is openly Christian, and the answer to him should be the same as the answer to you: The mere fact that you consider someone’s personal choices to be stupid or wicked is not sufficient for the state to treat them differently. If a teacher, either gay or Christian, actually says or does something inappropriate, that’s different.
Do you think personal conduct outside the classroom should ever be relevant (assuming, of course, that it isn’t criminal)? Is there ever a point when notoriety limits effectiveness? I’m thinking of the occasional cases you read about where a teacher is moonlighting as a stripper, and word gets out. Or if a science teacher is running a cannabis store in a legal marijuana state. I don’t think Kilgore would be pleased to read about the high school science teacher in California who transgendered over a school break. When I was young, the big change was when a lady teacher got… Read more »
I would say that someone who is active in the Flat Earth Society should not be permitted to teach science, since that undermines the very subject he’s teaching. And I would say that conduct that renders the teacher ineffective as a teacher because the students no longer respect him would probably qualify too, since part of a teacher’s job is to maintain the respect of the students.
Replace someone who is active in the Flat Earth Society with a transgendered activist and the point is the same.
If by “activist” you mean someone who talks about being transgendered when she is supposed to be talking about math or science, then I agree with you. Teachers are hired to teach certain subjects, not to use the classroom for their personal hobby horses, and the same thing would be true of a Christian teacher using the classroom to evangelize. If by “activist” you mean someone who is simply living honestly, or who merely is transgendered, then I disagree. Your children will be exposed to a wide variety of behaviors and beliefs you don’t agree with — that’s part of… Read more »
When I was in teacher training, our lunatic professor came into class one day and ordered all the Catholics to stand. A few of us, trained to instant obedience, got up and waited expectantly. She launched into a tirade about how iniquitous it was that Catholics were allowed to teach in the public schools. The amazing thing is that it was not for the usual reasons. Her objection was that Catholics are a bunch of superstitious bead-rattlers who deny science, treat women like dirt, cling to the prejudices of our peasant origins, and believe things that would make a child… Read more »
Why do you think I homeschooled my kids? Lol!
Just for the record, is transgender a verb? That one threw me for a second.
Kilgore, you have waded into a controversy that is creating nearly as much fuss as the subject itself. Purists are going nuts over people using transgender as anything other than an adjective. It is not a noun, and it is definitely not a verb. If there is no such verb as “to gender,” there is certainly no such verb as “to transgender.” However, the purists will lose this battle as so many others. I am still not happy about “parenting,” but I have given up. But there is one battle over which I will never hoist the white flag. If… Read more »
Your ideal society insists on certain metaphysical assumptions – e.g. that gross sexual perversion is no big deal – and invites anyone who differs to kindly bugger off: either I have to change my view, or I have to withdraw. Which is my point – you can’t have a society with that big of an ideological crevasse. There has to be consensus or you’re left with force.
Is this perhaps an insuperable obstacle not just involving gays? In my daughter’s time in public school, teachers were pretty careful not to be obvious about their private lives and opinions. But she had Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and Buddhist teachers. Would that be an issue for you even f you knew that the teachers would not proselytize? When I first started teaching in public schools, morals clauses were on their way out. I think that now there would have to be impropriety with a student to result in any serious consequence. When people have children in public schools in the… Read more »
I think that perversion shouldn’t be treated like a respectable thing. That offends my deepest sensibilities. It is especially offensive when the perverts in question want to exercise a formative influence over pubescent children. Is this not obvious?
Along the same lines, I wouldn’t want Muslim or Sikh teachers, either. Education is a moral endeavor, educators wield moral influence, and I’m not keen on handing that sort of power over to open idolaters. Of course everyone is sinful. But at least with a sinful Christian it is possible to maintain social consensus over what that word means.
Widespread buggery, to borrow Barnie’s term, is unquestionably a public health issue. The cultural consequences of widespread homosexuality are very bad, but the public health concerns alone are enough to shoot down a live and let live approach. This is the problem with libertarian nonsense. We are not islands.
STDs, AIDS (formerly GRID), domestic abuse, promiscuity, licentiousness, and health problems are all extremely high in the homo world. One look at a gay pride parade shows just how lewd and degrading that world is.
Kilgore, it may interest you to know that divorce, out of wedlock births and domestic abuse are far higher among evangelicals than they are among unbelievers. Go on google if you don’t believe me. So by your rationale, obviously believers shouldn’t be allowed to teach school either.
Krychek_2 wrote: Kilgore, it may interest you to know that divorce, out of wedlock births and domestic abuse are far higher among evangelicals than they are among unbelievers. First, correlation is not causation. [[cough]] Income level and education can have more of a correlation with divorce than religious belief. According to the Wilcox study, there is a huge swing in divorce rate between nominal and active theists. For example, active conservative Protestants are 35% less likely to divorce than those with no religious affiliation. According to wikipedia, a similar study by Wilcox “found that the lowest reported rates of domestic… Read more »
So then are you arguing that correlation is not causation with respect to gay men and promiscuity, STD’s, etc? The point I was responding to is Kilgore’s claim that gays have higher rates of those things. If correlation is not causation for one, then it can’t be for the other either.
Did you know that the word buggery came to us from the medieval Latin word for Bulgarians, who were presumably associated with this sexual practice? I wonder if modern Bulgarians resent this.
Krychek_2 wrote:
This is false. Just ask Lot and his wife. I don’t want to have to evacuate when God comes to judge perversion.
Krychek_2, I am sometimes of the belief that you are the cynical secularist on the Christian blog. Like when you ignore Katecho’s challenges to your worldview. But then you drop something like this and I begin to think that maybe, just maybe there is something sincere under there. Perhaps this topic is personal. For you? Perhaps a child? A sibling? Pride gets in the way of everyone. It is the cause of this never ending tension, and unfortunately secularism is not the solution. Christ’s forgiveness and the empowerment of the Spirit is. To answer your question, by trying to control… Read more »
Kilgore, you’re new here; the reason I ignore Katecho is that when I do engage him, his response is “La, la, la, I can’t hear you and you’re ignoring me.” My engagement of him is in the archives multiple times over. I am fine with the evangelical church defining marriage however it wants, and not recognizing marriages that don’t comply. I grew up in a church that didn’t recognize second marriages; if you were in one, you were considered an adulterer and excommunicated, even though the state did recognize the second marriage. I can’t for the life of me imagine… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: Kilgore, you’re new here; the reason I ignore Katecho is that when I do engage him, his response is “La, la, la, I can’t hear you and you’re ignoring me.” My engagement of him is in the archives multiple times over. The reason that Krychek_2 must ignore my challenges is because materialism simply provides no answer. Krychek_2 gins up expectations in contradiction to his materialism. He appeals to utilitarianism as if matter is expected to have utility. In a purposeless, accidental universe, utility is not expected. Case closed. Even though the case is closed, Krychek_2 may try to… Read more »
From a modern perspective yours is a question that is common. I am not certain it comes from a libertarian perspective which is how it is framed. If we leave the basis for your libertarian approach to the side (many cultures would dispute its axioms), I think that you are asking for more than to be left alone. I find a good question to see if someone has libertarian tendencies, the desire to live and let live, can be :Are you willing to let other people do what you think is poor form? Do you legislate against everything you don’t… Read more »
They’re in it to win and winning to them means destroying God’s work, particularly anything smelling of Christendom. It’s not that they can’t see that all this is heading to Hell–that’s where they want to go. Many of their followers won’t realize what they’ve been supporting until it’s too late.
They’re in it to win and winning to them means destroying God’s work, particularly anything smelling of Christendom like freedom or paternal authority. It’s not that they can’t see that all this is heading to Hell–that’s where they want to go. Many of their followers won’t realize what they’ve been supporting until it’s too late.
Rob, I think part of the problem is a complete lack of humility on all sides about the possibility that they may be wrong. I believe my world view is correct, otherwise I wouldn’t hold it. But I’m under no illusions that it’s not possible that I might have missed something, which makes it easier for me to say that people who aren’t bothering other people should generally be left alone, even if I think their world view is mistaken. Your fellow Christians, and my fellow progressives, are both laboring under the misapprehension that they have absolute truth and the… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: … I do have to say that it makes little sense to me for people who disagree with you to then complain when you do within your own institutions what your theology requires you to do. Likewise, it makes little sense for Krychek_2 to complain about what we do outside our own institutions, in the broad daylight of the public square. It’s not like Krychek_2’s worldview provides any expectations or anything. Perhaps someday Krychek_2 will grasp the failure of his worldview to provide any rational basis for complaining or arguing about anything, anywhere. In his materialism, whatever is,… Read more »
I do wish more people understood this. Do not enroll your child in a Catholic school and then complain that she can’t wear a pro-abort tee-shirt on uniform-free days. Do not enroll in a women only gym and then complain that your husband can’t work out there. Do not expect the law to take your side when, knowing the terms ahead of time, you decide that 15 month payment plan wasn’t such a good idea. But it is still a difficult issue. Perhaps it was easier when I was young and nobody would have dreamed of turning to a school… Read more »
I recently watched a video of a 12 yr old girl, Mormon, in front of her church,coming out as a lesbian and lecturing everyone about love and tolerance and I thought of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and how it wasn’t even about her message or what she was saying. It was about privacy, modesty, self respect. It was about the fact that a 12 yr old girl who barely has a “sexuality” at all, had been deceived into standing before an entire congregation and disclosing intimate sexual details about herself to strange adults, with no thought of her own modesty,… Read more »
I agree with every word you say. There was a much healthier time when we understood that 12 year old girls don’t have a whole lot of insight into their minds, their bodies, and their sexuality. I think it is horrible to paint them into a corner so young. What poor kid is going to want to give up all that attention and applause when he realizes that his feelings have changed? I actually feel the same way about using children for political purposes. I can be in 100% agreement on the issue the kid is speaking for, but the… Read more »
And if Doug found an out-and-out racist alt-right white supremacist among his students, I’m sure he’d expel *his* ass too. But we shouldn’t use such harsh language, right? After all, he’s a hurting and confused and poor troubled soul too – just one with a KKK card in his wallet and a noose in his closet.
Just to be clear – YES that language would be appropriate to use. But sweet Christian ladies wouldn’t be writing him letters about it.
“their new townhouse, the one they just bought on the sunny side of Compromise Boulevard.”
And are still in hock for. In fact, they are upside down. They really should just walk away.
Doug, is there a way to indicate who you are when you upvote or downvote a comment? Perhaps there already is, and I haven’t figured it out. I personally find it cowardly to downvote somebody unless I am willing to put my name beside it, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. As it stands, I upvote most of the people who get downvoted, returning their score to zero!
Be the coward,
and don’t game the system.
Oh all right. At least to the second part. The Snowflake personally met Netanyahu. Now she’s off to Greece for a week. There is a message in this, and it’s not that spending your whole life trying to be good all the time actually gets you anywhere! At least not in this mortal sphere!
I’ve asked the guy who’s doing the tech side of things, and haven’t heard back from him on that…or on the nonfunctional Twitter login option…or on the completely obnoxious you-must-select-and-confirm-every-single-instance reply notification system. ;^)
Jill, as an illustrative object lesson, I have down voted you despite admiring your courage.
Thank you, and the added lesson in humility may save me from having to stick in a pin in my arm when I sum up good deed/bad deed ledger at the end of the day!
Jilly, Best solution is to completely ignore up and down votes. It’s a well established fact that upvotes and like buttons ruin discourse. Things that get high votes include: *affirmation of groupthink *snark and sarcasm *brief humor *silly anecdotes *well reasoned expositions of alternative positions (just kidding – these get ignored or downvoted) Downvotes are sometimes given to trolls, but more often they are given to disaffirmations of groupthink. People are so reward driven that a stupid like, or +1 can enormously alter their behavior. When researchers create parallel comment systems with and without a way to easily signal approval,… Read more »
Thank you! I found that research interesting because that’s not how I award upvotes. I realized, to my horror, that I do it the way I used to grade English essays: Nice try! Good point! Great use of personal example! “A” for effort! Now you’ve got it! Yes, I like you too!”
I’ve been watching a flanking maneuver going on in the PCA church and I imagine that there’s probably something similar going on in a lot of other denominations. When I was a kid it was common for the pastor (not PCA) to yell the word “sodomite” from the pulpit. Right now all the nice ladies in the church are passing around Rosaria Butterfield books and there’s a big emphasis being placed on being winsome towards homosexuals. I’m not saying that going to homo barbeques wont ever win an unlikely convert or two but once they get the full noble savage/inverted… Read more »
I think you didn’t read Rosaria Butterfield’s book, if you think it’s about being “winsome” the way you’re hinting at, that’s what I think.
Not hinting at anything, friendly, kind, accommodating, inoffensive in a manner that might win someone over.
Yeah, you didn’t read the book. Thanks for confirming.
I haven’t read the book and probably won’t, but there is something about the word “winsome” that makes me want to find a kitten to kick. Nonetheless, there has to be a middle ground somewhere. I have a gay friend who went into a confessional in his early twenties and told his sins. The priest on the other side of the screen yelled, in stentorian tones that could probably be heard outside the church let alone the confessional, “You did WHAT? Not even an ANIMAL would do that.” Such a reply is not only Not Helpful but is also biologically… Read more »
At least the priest as loud as he was aliased via “do that.”
You should probably read her book. I think you would enjoy it.
Would I find it at a Christian book shop?
I second MeMe, you would like the book.
I’ve heard rumblings of the same from PCA corners. Can you share what you are seeing or pass along a link. Us OPC types keep our ear to the ground on their actions.
I’m not saying that there is any official change afoot, just a ground level drift in the culture of the church towards condemnation of judgementalism rather than buggery.
Okay, because I have heard other things. Mostly, there is suspicion that outside money is flowing into the coffers of some of the more influential voices in the PCA. When that happens, as it is happens en mass in the SBC, problems erupt.
And yes, downplaying sin and “judgementalism” is a priming of the pump for a bigger push for “buggery.”
In your military metaphor who is the flanking force and who are the line of defenders soon to be routed?
Are the PCA church ladies doing he flanking, or are they being flanked?
I think it grossly improper to refer to the flanks of respectable PCA ladies.
Mine is a general question. Is “same sex attraction ” the same as opposite sex attraction? In other words, are they both on the same biblical footing. I see in scripture approval for opposite sex attraction for it is part of God’s plan for humanity. A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. Certainly this can and is distorted in the sin of adultery. I do not see a biblical basis for the allowance of same sex attraction. Am I in error. Thanks.
Tony
To be fair, Wilson has ministered to far worse people than gay teens.
Well, I for one was greatly offended!
You used the word ‘He’ and that certainly cannot be affirmed!
Outrageous!
It’s always the donkey’s fault…
“Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,” and
“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word…”
1 Peter 2:7-8
Thank you, Pastor Wilson, for following our Lord’s example in calling out the brood of vipers in this generation.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9
As long as evil hearts exist mankind will rationalize sin.
Why stop with mild crudities? Why not defend ordinate affections with four letter words? Like John Frame defending those who watch fornication in movies (895-896 DCL), like Robert Webber using sexual gutter language to relate to the Bible study group in which I met him, like D. A. Carson assuming at a pastor’s conference that we all enjoyed Titanic. An example like the title of this post belongs in a book like Evanjellyfish. Why enlist profanity in the just fight against perversion?
Seth Meyers wrote: Why enlist profanity in the just fight against perversion? Scripture does, so there must be a valid reason to do so. Though it’s not to be entered into casually, or by immature hot heads. When someone who never uses obscenities suddenly lets one fly, in an unmistakably considered, deliberate, and directed fashion, it has the rhetorical effect of shooting a bullet at a target. It brings a hush over the audience. Someone who uses obscenities all the time has completely lost the capacity for such rhetorical contrast. They have no bullets left to use when actually needed.… Read more »
“And one of the principal charges against me is that I minister to sexually disreputable people.” – You mean when you came to the defense of a child molester by engaging in character assassination against the victim? Talk about using a euphemism to hide the true extent of how you “minister.”