Monday, April 4, 2016
Transgender Pain and Lawlessness
Those who claim to be "transgender" (the new language for transvestites and cross-dressers) have tremendous soul pain -- a separate discussion. But when does pain translate into lawlessness, and thus harm the whole social order?
One central biblical ethic is the power of informed choice, rooted in Genesis 2. Here, informed choice is only possible as rooted in a true definition of terms -- good versus evil, freedom versus slavery, life versus death.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade, which "legalized" human abortion, refused to consider the definition of biological human life.
From 2004 to 2015, Goodridge, Kerrigan and Obergefell, in "legalizing" same-sex marriage, refused to define any biological or fixed identity for homosexuality.
And now, new "transgender" laws refuse to define male and female, making such definitions momentarily subjective, thus endangering women and girls as cross-dressing males use women's public restrooms.
False definitions of terms now govern.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:8, the antichrist is defined as "the lawless one." When lawlessness assaults the nature of male and female, and the covenant of marriage, social collapse beckons. How close are we?
The church first needs to repent for her own sins before we can grasp a redemptive vision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting to hear the refusal to define terms and maintain subjective playing field. Remind me not to play cards with these people.
With children starting and facing college choices a relatively new vocabulary is showing up in literature and on school websites. Terms like "diversity," "open-mindedness," "unity," "plurality," "politically correct," and such, speak to subtle (or not so subtle) political, social and world-view issues that they can expect on the campus scene.
When I was their age I was in a church where the speaker rather defiantly proclaimed to be a "feminist." I was familiar with the term, and thought I knew what it meant; but, the way it was presented to us was as if something bad was about to happen; so, I looked it up. The dictionary said that a "feminist" is someone who believes men and women are equal, and deserve equal opportunity and rights. Gee, I thought, I must be a feminist too. Over the years, I learned that the culture of movements may not necessarily harmonize with the compelling language that started or represents them. Indeed, I have been exposed to many things in the years since that, in the name of "feminism" made me not want to embrace that term. To be sure, I can equally say I have experienced things under the brand "Christian" that made me not want to embrace that term either.
What is challenging about the terms today, unlike anything I've ever seen before, is the leveraging of law. Today's "diversity" means that some values are outlawed, while other values are required. Today's "unity" does not mean that people of opposing views find common ground in which to peacefully coexist; rather, it means that people of one value system force people of another value system to violate their beliefs and subordinate their will to be the same as the ruling class. And, ironically, all this is in the name of "liberty" and "freedom." Thus, it is all the more ironic that this battle has taken to the bathroom. How fitting. And, how far will our society let this go? No bathrooms? 1 type of bathroom? 4-5 classes of bathrooms? North Carolina is saying these rules only apply if the chosen gender is listed on a person's birth certificate. Will there be a person at the door checking; and, will everyone be required to carry an ID (and show it) to use the WC?
To be sure, to people oriented through life as heterosexual, this may sound ridiculous. Yet it is no more ridiculous for them than it is painful for people who have spent life oriented physically differently than they are oriented cognitively. This is a pain that should not be ignored, it should be accepted, and all of society should assume it is all of our problem. The solution, however, is not to force a new norm that violates the masses. Wisdom, and true unity, comes through understanding. The best solutions will become apparent as we learn to understand why we have the issues in the first place. Why are we so bifurcated? What is it that makes people uncomfortable (on either side of the equation), and what are the factors that create the painful disconnect between body and mind? But, to begin, are we truly honest enough and brave enough to face these questions with an open mind?
I'm curious which sins John thinks the church needs to repent from. In my eyes, the church's fidelity to marriage as instituted by God has collapsed along with the culture's stated belief in marriage. The US academic culture stopped doing research on adultery in the 1980s, perhaps because by then it represented about half of all married women and two-thirds of married men -- that is to say, it had become a cultural norm, not a deviance to be studied. Since I started attending church regularly in the 1980s, I can't say whether this was a popular sermon topic previously; I can only say that in the last almost 4 decades, I've heard dozens of sermons that reference homosexuals and premarital sex ... maybe two or three that have mentioned adultery (and that usually of the "emotional infidelity" kind).
Post a Comment