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.