Erasing Women
A few years ago, my friend and former Breakpoint co-host Eric Metaxas wrote a book called Seven Women. While researching for the book, Metaxas made a strategic decision: he would not write about women who were merely the first women to do something men had already done — even though these were the sorts of women people kept recommending he write about.
Instead, Metaxas wrote about women who improved the world because they were women, not in spite of that fact.
Since Seven Women was published in 2016, the rise of the transgender movement has further degraded our culture’s respect for femaleness. A few weeks ago, Twitter users began sharing stories of notable women in history and claiming, under the hashtag “TransAwarenessWeek2021,” that these women weren’t women at all.
“Queen Kristina of Sweden was born female, but wore male clothing,” one user wrote. “She did not marry and inherited the Swedish crown.” Thus, we are to believe, Kristina of Sweden was transgender.
The contrast between Metaxas’ celebration of women as women and the transgender movement’s aggressive decree that any woman who does something stereotypically male must therefore be a man is profound.
Until yesterday, culturally speaking, it was our bodies, not our minds or feelings — let alone what kind of clothes we wear — that determined a person’s sex. This should especially hold true for Christians, who know that God created His world good, and His image-bearers, very good. Transgender ideology tells lies, not only about the human body, but about the inherent goodness of sexual difference itself. That’s what was happening with this Twitter trend, too.
In the name of inclusivity, transgender ideology says there is a box inside which exists all the potential actions, attitudes, and appearances of a woman. Any woman, whether centuries ago or today, who does not fit neatly inside that box must be a man. This isn’t inclusivity. This is, in fact, the most exclusive possible vision of gender and sex.
-
How Does the Doctrine of the Bodily Resurrection Shape the Life of the Local Church?
Written by Mitchell L. Chase |
Friday, June 23, 2023
By teaching the doctrine of the bodily resurrection, local churches will be casting a more accurate vision of future life. Better than going away to heaven is being raised to dwell forever with the Lord in a new creation. The new creation will be material, not just spiritual, so a life of embodied immortality fits with the future consummation.Biblical doctrine is not just for the head but for the heart, for daily life as a disciple of Jesus. So it is, too, with the doctrine of bodily resurrection. Thinking about the future will help us here and now. In local churches that are pursuing faithfulness to Christ, we will want to connect the importance of sound doctrine to the lives of our church members.
How, then, does the doctrine of bodily resurrection shape the life of the local church? Let’s reflect on four ways.
Preparing to Die
First, the doctrine of the bodily resurrection confronts us with the reality of death. Our local churches are filled with people heading toward the grave. Memorial services are held for the young and old. By giving attention to the Bible’s teaching on the bodily resurrection, local churches face the truth that our earthly lives will come to an end. After all, something won’t rise unless it has first died. The writer of Ecclesiastes is right: “All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return” (Eccl. 3:20).
Humans have an invincibility problem, especially when we’re young. We know people die, but we don’t imagine it will one day be true of us. Facing the truth of our mortality will sober our minds, and we need that effect often. A responsibility for local churches is preparing people to die. Our sermons and Bible studies, our catechisms and songs, must operate from an awareness of our perishable frame.
As people reflect on their coming death, fear is a normal and understandable response. People fear the fact of death, the process of death, the timing of death, and what their death will mean for those left behind. By teaching about the bodily resurrection, churches are arming and aiding their members who may be tempted to fear what is to come. Death is the end of earthly life, but local churches must preach and teach and exhort one another with the good news that earthly death will end as well.
Pointing Beyond Disembodiment
Second, the doctrine of the bodily resurrection aims our hope beyond the disembodiment of heaven. What are some popular conceptions about the life to come? Playing harps on clouds, becoming angels with wings, living forever away from this creation, or dwelling in some kind of ghostly or ethereal existence. These notions aren’t just believed by people outside the church. These are common notions among church attenders. Local churches have a responsibility to educate their people about what exactly our future hope entails.
Disembodiment is not the best thing about what is to come. At death, the believer goes to heaven. Death disrupts the union of soul and body.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Children Need Their Parents, Not Big Government
Depending upon the State to instil these virtues of morality, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and respect for others is a pipe dream. Sure, not every parent will be an ideal role model in these areas, but I would far rather trust them to ‘train up a child in the way he should go’ than rely on government bureaucrats and politicians pushing radical ideological agendas to do so.
One thing that is now crystal clear is that the radicals and militants are fully and ferociously targeting our children. No wonder we hear so much today about grooming and the like: it is all part of the war on children – and parents. The aim is to separate kids from their mothers and fathers and let others with nefarious agendas take over.
These folks have made known their dislike of the traditional family, and how children must be ‘freed’ from the ‘harmful’ values, convictions and beliefs of their parents. They are quite open about all this. And this has been going on for quite some time. As Anthony Esolen wrote in Defending Marriage (Saint Benedict Press, 2014):
It is not the State that defines what marriage is; nature has done that. It is not the State that determines the good of the family; nature has done that, too. It is not even the State that creates the village or the parish. Households have done that. Before there was ever a gross national product, there was economy, the law of the good of the oikos, the household. The ancient Greeks, who bequeathed to us both the term and the reality of democracy, understood that the individual as such was something of an abstraction. You belonged to a family, a household, a clan….
Totalitarian regimes since Plato penned his Republic … have always been aimed against the family, and for good reason. The family is the single greatest bastion against the power of the State. That’s not because of ‘individual’ rights. It’s because the family claims precedence in being and in nature. It is itself a society anterior to the greater society.
We are aware of the old African proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child.” It means that the surrounding community has a role to play in the development of a child. In its context, it is quite true, and it refers, for example, to other male adults teaching a boy how to hunt. Obviously in a small African village such communal help in training and nurturing children makes perfect sense.
There are several problems when we seek to replicate that wisdom in contemporary Western society. One, we of course do not live in small, close-knit communities. Instead, we may be scattered many miles from extended family members and friends. Letting complete strangers have a role in raising our kids is just not a useful option.
But more importantly, those who most often use this mantra today have something much different in mind when it comes to the raising and socialising of our children. What they almost always mean is having the State take over the role of mum and dad in parenting, educating and training our children.
The classic example of this of course is found in the 1996 book It Takes a Village by Hilary Clinton. Unaware parents might have thought she was giving us some helpful parenting tips, but more savvy readers instantly knew what the real agenda was. For example, a year after the book appeared radio talk show host Dale O’Leary discussed the book.
In The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality (Vital Issues Press, 1997) she looked at the feminist activism and those pushing the androgyny agenda (men and women are fully interchangeable) and warned of its consequences. Toward the end of her book, she asked what can be done to stop the gender agenda. She said this:
The first step is obviously exposure. Gender feminists have left a paper trail, and they must be made to eat their words. Gender feminists who hid behind family language need to be exposed. A perfect example of this kind of deception is Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, which is full of wonderful, apparently profamily wisdom. Underneath, however, one finds the gender feminist ideology.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Love What God Loves but Hate What God Hates
We are commanded in scripture to not love the world. We must be in the world, but we cannot be part of it. If we love the world then we will also take on a love for the things above that God hates. We must love what God loves and hate what He hates. He hates compromise with the world and its ways. We must do the same.
9 For You are Yahweh Most High over all the earth;You are exalted far above all gods.10 Hate evil, you who love Yahweh,Who keeps the souls of His holy ones;He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.11 Light is sown for the righteousAnd gladness for the upright in heart.12 Be glad in Yahweh, you righteous ones,And give thanks for the remembrance of His holy name. Psalms 97:9-12 (LSB)
I saw a bumper sticker on a SUV the other day. I had seen this particular bumper sticker before so I was not surprised by it. However, for some reason it caused me to focus on the message it was attempting to convey. The bumper sticker read, “Hate is not a family value.” Now, I know and I am sure most of you know that that statement is meant to cause those who stand firm for family values and parental rights pertaining to the exposing of their children to the Homosexual agenda in school or any other public institution to become intimidated. The message conveys the idea that those taking this stance are expressing hatred towards people who only want to be accepted for how God made them. Of course, the Bible clearly teaches us that that concept is a lie and that Homosexuality is a set of perverse, sinful, sexual behaviors that are condemned by God as an abomination. It also says that any who practice them will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
The Apostle John wrote in 1 John 4:11 that God is love and in vv7-8 he states emphatically that genuine Christians will also be partakers and givers of that same love. However, love cannot exist in a vacuum. If one loves, then he or she will also hate. The hate will be directed at anything or anyone who threatens the object of that love. God does hate and all who belong to Him are called to hate what He hates. The following is a list from the book of Proverbs of some things that God hates.
16 There are six things which Yahweh hates,Even seven which are an abomination to Him:17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,And hands that shed innocent blood,18 A heart that devises wicked thoughts,Feet that hasten to run to evil,19 A false witness who breathes out lies,And one who spreads strife among brothers.20 My son, observe the commandment of your fatherAnd do not abandon the law of your mother; Proverbs 6:16-20 (LSB)
God hates a proud look. This is a manifestation of pride. In Hebrew this phrase, “haughty eyes,” literally means “lofty eyes.” The prideful has his or her nose in the air and their eyes uplifted. When pride fills the heart, it does manifest itself in the mannerisms of the person. God hates those who disdain everyone and everything. The sin of pride is probably listed here in this passage first because it is the root of all disobedience and rebellion against God. When I was in the US Navy in the early 1970’s, I was stationed at the Bureau of Naval Personnel in our nation’s capital. There was a fellow who worked in another department on a floor above ours who was probably the most arrogant person I have ever met. He was also blatantly homosexual. The few times I had to deal with him, he made sure I understood how inferior I was to him by not doing his job, but instead deliberately giving me the run around.
When I first arrived at that station in November 1973, I was considered a ‘boot’ so I had to do all of the unpleasant things that those who were there before me did not want to do. That included dealing with that person in question. However, unlike those who passed this task on to me, I was probably just as arrogant as him and had a very short fuse. I was not a believer at that time and so much of my behavior back then is painful for me to recount. What I did was go talk to my Chief. As I spoke to him, I did not know that the Commander who was over us could hear our conversation. I told my Chief about the runaround that fellow gave us every time we tried to get information for our work from his department. Those over him were always upset with us because they had to continually redo orders that should have been given to us each day, but the process was being short circuited by this fellow when we tried to get help with understanding what the detailer was actually requesting. My Chief cleared his throat and I stopped complaining because we both detected our commanding officer entering the office. He asked which department was the problem and whom it was that was doing this. My Chief looked at me and I answered the question.
Read More
Related Posts:
