Written by Edward J. Erler |
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Transgenderism seeks the ultimate victory of technology over nature—the goal of science at its very origins, “the conquest of nature.” You can ask my friends (if I have any left) whether I predicted that transgenders would soon outrank gays in the new morality, a morality which judges based on who is most committed to the denial of the relevance of nature and all standards of nature. But has transgenderism succeeded? Has it driven out nature with its virtual pitchfork of technology? Or is it merely deluding itself? Isn’t cannibalism a greater denial of human nature? Doesn’t cannibalism outrank transgenderism in the new morality? 

The flagship publication of Hillsdale College, Imprimis, which the College claims has a readership of more than six million, has recently published an article by the current enfant terrible of conservatism, Christopher F. Rufo, entitled “Inside the Transgender Empire.” The article explores the question of how transgenderism became so successful, and especially how the transgendered and Drag Queens became so celebrated among the ruling elites. Rufo rehearses all the horrors that have been visited upon American society and politics by the transgender movement and, I believe, he thinks his analysis of that danger goes to the radical source of that danger.
It does not! His analysis is not radical enough; it ignores the fact that the triumph of the transgender movement will inevitably lead to cannibalism. If you think that statement is too harsh for polite readers, read on.
The Los Angeles Times has published not one but two rave reviews of a movie celebrating cannibalism. Glenn Whipp, reporting from the Telluride Film Festival in September of 2022, describes Bones and All as “a tender story of young love” starring two “fine young cannibals trying to negotiate their natures and doing their best to ethically source their next meal.” What makes the cannibalism ethical, one supposes, is that the movie’s two cannibal stars are “people on society’s margins” who are stigmatized and shunned. Whipp seems to think that this brings ethical issues into the equation. In this clash, the ethical conundrum seems to be a choice between the right to life of the victims of cannibals, and the cannibals’ desire to pursue the food of their choice; who is the real victim?—those who are eaten by the cannibals or the cannibals whose way of life is considered unacceptable and stigmatized by society?
The second review, by Mark Olsen describes the film as “part horror film, part coming-of age tale, part romance.” He explains part of the movie’s plot as “two young ‘eaters’” “attempting “to stake out a semblance of normalcy and stability.” But, of course, it is difficult to imagine normalcy and stability developing among cannibals, and the reviewer observes that “the film is driven by a sadness, a mournful, haunted quality that covers even moments of freedom and joy.” The “freedom and joy” presumably breaks forth from the mournful gloom when then cannibals have stalked and succeeded in consuming their next meal.
We should have been prepared for the praise of the morality of cannibalism. I, for one, have been prepared for it for years. Friends, casual acquaintances, and bystanders have endured my discussions, sometimes polemics and even screeds, on how the result of progressive thought would ultimately be cannibalism. All those many years ago, it sounded utterly fantastic, but when I first heard the claims from anthropologists and other social scientists that opposition to cannibalism was merely western food aversion—in other words, an irrational prejudice—I knew that cannibalism was coming.
Liberation movements from the very beginning sought to free human beings from the restraints of nature and of nature’s god. Marx, of course, wasn’t the first, but his simple account is the easiest to explain. We create God to put moral restraints upon ourselves. Creating this non-human or divine source gives the restrains greater authority. But once we realize that God is only a myth or creation, it loses its authoritative power as a tool of oppression for the ruling classes. Once the proletariat seizes power in the inevitable dialectic of history, God, will be exposed as a fraud foisted on the people and can be dismissed. A new, secular morality will be designed to support the party of the working class. Today’s secular religion of the “woke” resembles that party, but it no longer has its roots in the working class, even as it demands the same loyalty and metes out the same harsh discipline as Marxist-Leninism.
Feminism was a successful liberation movement. Once feminism realized that there are no significant or relevant natural differences between the sexes, it became obvious that there were no grounds in law or politics for any inequality. Elimination of classifications by sex for civil rights issues—equal opportunity in employment, voting rights, etc.—were certainly warranted and just, but once the natural distinction between the sexes was deemed irrelevant for civil rights, then it was almost inevitable (and here I paint with a broad brush) that it became irrelevant for all purposes.
Read More
Related Posts:

TE LeCroy’s pair of blogposts make some outlandish insinuations regarding the GRN and other groups such as the Aquila Report, MORE in the PCA, and Presbycast. While he’s long on insinuation, Dr LeCroy is short on specifics and evidence. That’s not a way forward for peace in the PCA. I propose a different way forward for peace in the PCA. First, cease the broad brush allegations about “big money” and “rhetoric,” but rather be clear and specific about concerns. 

I have no interest in sports. However in high school, I did run cross country, and for our warm up run we frequently would take a big lap around our school campus. As we ran, I was always amused by the things they put on the school sign; it was usually some proverbial soundbite or moral. One of them has stood out in my memory since that time both for its pithiness and its wisdom:
Never ruin an apology with an excuse.– Benjamin Franklin
Last week the Reverend Professor Tim Lecroy, PhD published a meandering blogpost on the SemperRef collective in which he initially seemed to be hoping for a less combative future in the PCA as he poignantly asked, “Will we have peace” as he reflected on his 25 years in the PCA and some of the controversies he has witnessed.
But the blogpost quickly abandoned its irenic façade in favor of what TE Charles Stover characterized as “Slander, for unity’s sake” in which Dr LeCroy leveled allegations, assertions, and questions aimed at the “right wing of the PCA” including the especially outrageous assertion that the GRN has a “secret council” and that the National Partnership (NP) “was never anything more than an email list and a facebook chat group that apparently enjoyed the occasional bourbon and cigar.”
I. Mea Culpa
The blogpost was exceptionally bad. As a man with a Doctor of Philosophy from Saint Louis University (one of the leading Roman Catholic research institutions in the world), he should have known better. As a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (adjunct), we should be able to expect Dr LeCroy understands responsible research and the evidence needed to make such claims in writing. As a member of the editorial team for the SemperRef Collective, one would assume TE LeCroy would be more careful about what he puts in writing on the blog.

TE LeCroy giving a report at the 49th General Assembly of the PCA.

Late last week, Dr LeCroy issued a followup blogpost, Mea Culpa, in which he called a personal foul on himself. He tried to explain what a “personal foul” is using basketball. He stated he was just being “sarcastic” in asserting the GRN has a secret council, since people have used that word to describe him and his friends. So LeCroy doesn’t believe the GRN has a secret council; he was being sarcastic.
Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!” (Prov. 26:18–19)
Dr LeCroy insists:
Let me be clear: I do not believe that the GRN has a secret council. I also apologize for insinuating. My insinuations were based on my own experience, anecdotal evidence told to me, and my own hunches, but they were insinuations nonetheless. I shouldn’t have put them in print.
Well now I’m not clear. Does Professor LeCroy believe the GRN has a secret council or not? He said his insinuations are based on his own experience, anecdotal evidence, and his hunches. What does this mean?
This is an interesting way to apologize; to retract one’s assertion and then assert he has evidence and hunches to support his insinuation.
II. The Show Me State
TE LeCroy does not have the benefit of having been born in Missouri as I have. But TE LeCroy has ministered in the Show Me State long enough to understand how we Missourians don’t accept claims without evidence. What “experience” and “anecdotal evidence” does Dr LeCroy have to support his claims?
I asked publicly on Twitter for this evidence and I received a (now deleted) sarcastic reply from an anonymous user of the SemperRef twitter account:

The user of the SemperRef Twitter account later identified himself as someone called “Travis” and apologized for his sarcasm.

Few people appreciate sarcasm more than I do. Sometimes I tell my wife, “sarcasm is my love language.” So I am indeed feeling the love from our brothers at SemperRef.
SemperRef describes itself as an organization that aims to:
Provide content that upholds our calling to speak the truth in love and which honors the fullest understanding of the responsibilities embodied in the ninth commandment.
I find it an odd response that when asked for evidence of the claims made in one of their articles, they demanded I provide the emails to disprove what was “insinuated” in the article and seems to be oddly-reiterated in the oddly-named “Mea Culpa” followup.
That is not the way evidence works; one does not have to prove a negative or prove the non-existence of what another “insinuates.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Glenn D. Jerrell |
Monday, June 27, 2022
I share Mr. Castle’s criticism of social media, though he and I may have distinctly different takes on the criticism. But, nonetheless, we should both confess that sins of the tongue can be like a fire, they spread rapidly in a negative and as well in a positive culture. 

The rapid response of the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church under the guiding hand of the moderator and others, was exactly what was needed regarding incidents of reported racial disparagement. Mr. Bennie Castle makes a salient point, which should not be lost, that we live in a “negative” culture.

A negative world is nothing new. Ask the Suffering Servant about a negative culture. From our first parents Adam and Eve through Christ to the apostolic witness, sin is exposed in every generation and that is why the Word makes clear from beginning to end that a Savior from sin is absolutely necessary. Racial disparagement is a destructive and negative manifestation of sin.
I share Mr. Castle’s criticism of social media, though he and I may have distinctly different takes on the criticism. But, nonetheless, we should both confess that sins of the tongue can be like a fire, they spread rapidly in a negative and as well in a positive culture.  Given the ability of social media to spread information rapidly (a curse and a blessing), the 88th General Assembly (GA) was pastorally on target to make a statement rapidly. The GA’s statement on race addressed a specific situation and contains statements that we would use in a sermon without having a trial. Those statements are simply good applications of the Scriptures to a specific situation.
The expression, “doubling down on Presbyterianism,” fuels questions which may not be fair to the OPC and its GA. What is within the power of a GA to deal with in such a situation? Many situations are resolved without formal charges. From a Presbyterian governmental perspective, what tools did the moderator have available to him to address this situation? If it had occurred on the floor in debate the moderator would have called it out of order and even perhaps reproved the person from the podium. But this incident occurred outside of the Assembly’s hearing. It came to us initially by a report from a party outside the church. The moderator and the Assembly realized the immediate need to respond in a Christ-like, pastoral fashion. The Assembly and its representatives worked tirelessly on the situation with prayer and with communication to the University. They took solid steps towards dealing with the situation.
A further Presbyterian governmental point is this: the 88th GA no longer exists. It has been dissolved. Furthermore, original jurisdiction is not given to the general assembly, but the general assembly may communicate the Word in pastoring the church.
It appears to me that the statement served well in that it handled pastorally a real problem that could have proven explosive in our negative culture in which social media governs much debate. If not dealt with rapidly it could have turned out much more poorly. Now it belongs to a presbytery or session to do the rest! The officers of the Assembly recognized that news of the incident would be on social media whether or not the OPC posted anything. Better to acknowledge what happened and how the church was dealing with it.
It has been reported that the comments were meant as a joke. We learn several things from this:1) Don’t wait five days to own it! Be forthright on day one. The delay magnified the problem. 2) Be careful with humor; it can reveal callousness, insensitivity, or even a lack of love. 3) Mr. Castle writes that the “the only real instance of a GA commissioner giving offense was the instance of a bad joke made at the wrong time.” But that minimizes the importance of the biblical call to wholesome, upbuilding speech (Ephesians 4:29). Not long ago, the use of demeaning, abusive language towards several women and men, posted by some (not all) participants on a “private” website, was dismissed as bad humor. Particularly as officers of the church of Jesus Christ, we need to guard our tongues and not minimize the negative impact of disparaging words. Humor can be destructive. Perhaps we need to think about our “humor” in the light of the ninth commandment and the commandment to love our neighbors.
While it is useful to look forward in cultural analysis, it may prove more useful to look back at our own history. John Newton’s hymn, “Amazing Grace” should be played in one’s mind while considering the 13th Amendment. Newton’s history and our nation’s history intersect when considering the sin of slavery.
When it comes to offenses, hurts, and injury we should be quick to listen and to seek to resolve matters, but slow to defend ourselves.

If Presbyterianism is confused with procedure, it will prove to be hollow and devoid of the heart-warming pastoral shepherding that is embedded in a genuine Presbyterianism. Our hearts and minds should be attuned to our resurrected Lord and echo the words of the elders around the throne in glory as they sing “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God almighty.”
Glenn D Jerrell is a Retired Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC); he is living in Knoxville, Tenn.
Related Posts: