Faith: November 2019 Archives
For 11 Years, She Lived as a Man - Daily Signal
An interview with Kathy Grace Duncan, who desisted from living as a man after 11 years.
"Growing up in a dysfunctional family, I believed that women were hated, women were weak, women were vulnerable, and I didn't want that. I didn't want to grow up and be those things....
"I think rather than addressing that symptom--because really that's all it is, is a symptom of a deeper something that's going on--it's trying to look past and asking the why. "Why do you want to live as a man? Why do you think that that's better? Why do you think it's safer? Why is your gender bad?"
"And exploring what [are] the ideas around that and then addressing those things. Because usually it's a place of trauma, or perceived trauma, for them that says, 'Oh, this is not good. Who I am is not good.' And detaching from that and actually becoming hateful of your own self. And that was one of the things I really had to deal with was deep, deep self-hatred just because I was a woman....
"Well, I guess my question for [legislators] would be, 'Have you considered the emotional health? Have you looked at these kids emotionally?' Yeah, they're saying, 'This is what I feel,' but your feelings can lie to you and I can tell you that they lie to you. The way you feel is not always the truth. They need to look underneath all of that.
"'I feel that I'm a boy.' OK. 'Why do you feel that you're a boy?' I would encourage them to look at, do you have the data around the emotional health of that child?
"And looking at the data for those who have already gone through that and have the regret and the emotional trauma that they've gone through, and now they can't really change back necessarily or fully change back.
"So I would encourage them, you need to look beyond the symptoms and you need to get to the cause. What is the root cause of that before you pass any laws about gender identity and boys going into girls' bathrooms?"
The Sorry State of Evangelical Rhetoric - Sovereign Nations
Stephen Wolfe writes:
"The social justice talk in evangelicalism is remarkable for the absence of systematic thinking on the pertinent questions of justice. One rarely encounters precise and detailed theories of justice and careful applications.... The actual moral conclusion or determination precedes the moral principle. So their reasoning has a two-step sequence:
"1) Have a negative, moral reaction to something, a reaction that one is socialized to perform (perhaps on social media) upon encountering some event.
"2) Christianize the moral impression by confidently stating an extremely broad principle or statement from the Bible ('love your neighbor') or some other Christian-like statement without any attempt to make distinctions or qualifications or systematize or consider competing goods....
"...it is irrelevant that a consistent application of the principle would lead to all sorts of absurd outcomes, policies, actions, etc. For example, if one were to react to a restrictive immigration policy by affirming, without any distinctions or nuance, "the universal dignity of all people" or by saying that Christians ought to "love your neighbor," then how can any immigration restriction or even the illegality of border crossing stand up to the demands of Christian morality? But the logical consequences of the supplied principle are irrelevant, because it doesn't function in their reasoning as the determinate of their moral conclusions....
"...It is effective and expedient rhetoric, but wholly unprincipled. Even worse, it forms habits of thinking among evangelicals that are bad for them. Indeed, it is an abuse of the mind. The social justice evangelicals use and enforce rhetoric that harms people...."
"The two-step process of evangelical moral reasoning does very little, and perhaps nothing, that enables evangelicals to resist the world's moral influence. They will shift and progress with the moral doctrines of the world; and the superstructure of christianizing devices, which are extremely broad in the possibilities of their application, will always fulfill its purpose, regardless of the impression--it will always christianize and elevate moral conclusions into Christian morality. "
Pastor Steven Wedgeworth offers a pithy summary, a pattern I've noticed in articles that seem aimed at dislodging Christians from their support for conservative politicians:
"1) Decry a position that no one holds, 2) Affirm a position everyone supports, 3) Declare that this proves a different, more contentious point."
Preference and Amorality - Churches Without Chests
David de Bruyn writes regarding "adiaphora":
"Second, 'indifferent' things do not remain morally neutral once used by a moral agent. Certainly, food by itself does not commend us to God one way or another (1 Cor. 8:8). The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Ro. 14:17). Yes, the heart is established by grace, not by foods (Heb.13:9). And yes, what goes into a man does not defile him, but what comes out of his heart (Mark 7:18-23). All of this establishes that certain substances, objects, sounds, periods of time, and places are neither intrinsically good or evil.
"Once used, however, these things become instruments of faith toward God, or unbelief (Ro. 14:23b). This is Paul's project in 1 Corinthians 8-10: to show the Corinthians that morally neutral food can be used to glorify God or to please self sinfully. It can glorify God in thankful participation, and it can be used to glorify God in deferential and considerate abstention. It can be used selfishly by eating wantonly in front of a believer whose conscience has not stabilised, and it can be used selfishly by eating in front of an unbeliever who associates the food with idolatry. It can be used selfishly by abstaining with a proud and haughty attitude, or by eating with a scornful, in-your-face attitude. The food itself is simply part of 'the Earth which is the Lord's and the fullness thereof'. It is what moral agents do with the morally neutral food that makes their action moral or immoral....
"Put simply, morally indifferent things almost never translate into morally neutral actions, or morally neutral agents. We are required to take those morally neutral objects and discern their nature, their associations, their use, their dangers, their possibilities. We may find that certain morally neutral things, such as the musical notes C, D, or G, or the chemical substance alcohol (C2H6O), are no longer morally neutral once combined into a musical language, or an inebriating drink. To rightly use adiaphora, we are to consider a number of questions, mentioned in an earlier post in this series."
de Bruyn then offers 10 clarifying questions, based on scripture, that Christians ought to ask themselves about adiaphora.
- How is this thing typically used? What activities, actions and ends is it used for?
- Does it make provision for the flesh (Ro 13:14)? Are you fleeing from sin and lust by doing this? (2 Tim 2:22)?
- Does it open an area of temptation or possible accusation which Satan could exploit (Eph 4:27)? Are you taking the way of escape from temptation by doing this (1 Cor 10:13)?
- Is there a chance of enslavement, or addiction (1 Cor 6:12)?
- Does it spiritually numb you, and feed the flesh or worldliness within (Ro 6:12-13)?
- Does it edify you (1 Cor 10:23)?
- With what is this thing or activity associated? Does it have the appearance of evil (1 Thes 5:22)? Does it adorn the Gospel (Tis 2:10)?
- Could an unbeliever or another believer easily misunderstand your action? Does it lend itself to misunderstandings (Ro 14:16)?
- Could your action embolden a Christian with unsettled convictions to fall back into sin (1 Cor 8:7-13)?
- Could your action cause an unbeliever confusion over the Gospel or Christian living (1 Cor 10:27-28)?
