When trans activists first attacked Jordan Peterson for his refusal to cede language to them and their state enforcers, it looked likely that his career would be cancelled. Instead, his stance inspired millions, his ideas became global bestsellers, and his measured, meticulous manner of speaking and articulating ideas became so ubiquitous that it has inspired scores of parodies. Peterson proved that being brave and standing your ground does not have to be feared. His superstar status, rather, is evidence that we have all been craving courage for a very long time.

In the autumn of 2016, trans activists targeted Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, at the time a relatively obscure psychologist based at the University of Toronto. Peterson had released a video explaining why he opposed proposed Canadian legislation, Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act regulating speech regarding gender identity. Due to his decades-long study of totalitarianism, Peterson stated in no uncertain terms that in the fight for civilization, language was always one of the first battlefields—and was thus the hill to die on. We all know how that fight went. Instead of getting cancelled, Peterson got rich and famous.
After the fact, many wondered: why was Peterson so willing to sacrifice his career over the issue of transgender pronouns? He is now one of the world’s most well-known intellectuals, but at the time there was every likelihood that his story would end the way most of these incidents do—with a quiet firing, a 24-hour news story, and another victory for the dudes in drag. I heard a student ask Peterson this question at one of his early lectures in 2017, before he launched his global tours marked by the presence of security and prohibitive speaking fees.
His response was simple: why not? Usually, he pointed out, there are few compelling reasons to die for any particular patch of soil. But in order to fight, one has to draw a line. For Peterson, that line was language. He would not say what the trans activists and their government enforcers told him he must say, because he refused to cede the right to choose his words to the state.
It is cliché to mention George Orwell these days—everyone does it. But when it comes to explaining how totalitarians of all stripes manipulate language for ideological ends, it is difficult to beat 1984. “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” Syme, of the Ministry of Truth, tells Winston Smith. “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
When the range of available terminology is narrowed, so are the boundaries of the debate. When you accept the confines placed on language—or, in the case of ‘preferred pronouns’, use the compelled speech demanded of you—you accept ground chosen by your ideological opponents and agree to put aside the most potent weapons you have for making your case: words.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
The slavery of colonial and antebellum America was tragic but there is nothing we can do to change that history. The present is a different matter. That is our responsibility. No amount of indignant finger-pointing at the world of three hundred years ago will cleanse us of our present-day complicity.

Winston Churchill famously quipped that history would be kind to him, for he intended to write it. That line came to mind last week when I saw a tweet about America’s slave-owning past. It pointed out the rather obvious fact that Jonathan Edwards was only able to study as long and hard each day as he did because he had slaves to do the drudge work necessary for the material maintenance of his household. Whether this comment was intended to prove that Edwards’s theology was fundamentally unsound, or to demonstrate that Edwards (like me and, presumably, the author of the tweet) was morally flawed, or merely to point out that Edwards lived in the eighteenth century rather than the twenty-first was unclear.
The transatlantic slave trade was an evil. And it did enable men like Edwards to enjoy the leisure from physical work that then allowed them to study. But it was—and is—not the only evil that enables one class of people to enjoy life at the expense of another. Early critical theorist Walter Benjamin, using the idea of the spoils of war to reflect upon history, memorably commented:
[Cultural treasures] owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries. There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism.
Benjamin’s point is simple: The things we admire in culture are often built on the back of exploitation. And one does not need to be a Marxist to see that there is much truth in this claim.
Take, for example, companies currently involved with China—companies whose products we all use and that make our hi-tech lives, including those of the tweeting class, possible. In 2020 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute produced a report on the forced labor of Uighurs under the Chinese government and identified 82 companies that potentially benefit, directly or indirectly, from this. That list included Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung. Apple was among the companies that did not respond to the report. Last year, the New York Times reported on the efforts of American companies, including Apple and Nike, to weaken the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which would ban imported goods made with forced labor from the Xinjiang region of China. In May of this year, Business Insider reported that seven Apple suppliers had links to forced labor programs in China, including those that abused Uighur Muslims. In short, if you walk to work in Nike trainers or use a smartphone or computer, you can probably only do so because somebody in China has been enslaved and exploited. And that is before any consideration of how buying Chinese products in general supports a nation engaged in genocide and racially profiled forced sterilization, all enabled via a system of government concentration camps.
Read More

Pressure from the surrounding culture may push some evangelicals to seek to accommodate professing Christians in same-sex relationships as members of the body of Christ. Yet the explicit teaching of this text, penned by the inspired Apostle Paul, closes the door to pastoral accommodation. 

Introduction
With increasing pressure from the culture to revise the traditional moral disapproval of same-sex relations, evangelicals are wrestling with how the church ought to treat same-sex attracted Christians. A shift toward greater openness is taking place among some evangelical churches committed to the authority of Scripture as the only infallible rule of doctrine and life. A small but growing number of evangelical pastors and congregations have shifted from holding that same-sex activity is irreconcilable with commitment to Christ to allowing committed same-sex relationships within their membership.[1]
It remains to be seen how these evangelicals will answer further questions, such as whether same-sex relationships can be blessed as a “marriage” by the church and whether such individuals are eligible for ordained office in the church. Progressive evangelical churches could accept them as members, but hold the line there and reject gay ordination and same-sex wedding ceremonies. Presumably, if they wish to remain Bible-believing evangelicals, they would still want to maintain that same-sex relationships fall short of God’s creation ideal for sexuality and cannot be called “marriage” as the Bible defines it—a male-female one-flesh union. They would thus be pastorally accommodating same-sex relationships rather than treating them as true marriages fully blessed by God and endorsed by the church.
The best example of an evangelical holding this position is Lewis B. Smedes (1921–2002), who was a minister in the Christian Reformed Church and a professor of ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary. In Sex for Christians (1976), Smedes outlined a three-step discernment process for the same-sex attracted Christian. Step one is self-knowledge, meaning that the homosexual person must face the abnormality of having a same-sex orientation and refuse to blame themselves for this unchosen condition. Step two is hope—they should believe that change (from being homosexual to being heterosexual) is possible and seek it. But for those who have sought change and could not find it, there is a third step, which Smedes labels “accommodation.” The third step has two sub-steps. Step 3a is to consider whether the homosexual person is called to celibacy. For those who cannot manage celibacy, we come finally to Step 3b, and that is what Smedes calls “optimum homosexual morality,” which he describes as follows:
What morality is left for the homosexual who finally…can manage neither change nor celibacy? He ought, in this tragic situation, to develop the best ethical conditions in which to live out his sexual life…. To develop a morality for the homosexual life is not to accept homosexual practices as morally commendable. It is, however, to recognize that the optimum moral life within a deplorable situation is preferable to a life of sexual chaos…Here, as in few other situations, the church is called on to set creative compassion in the vanguard of moral law…It cannot fulfill its ministry simply by demanding chastity…. The agonizing question that faces pastors of homosexual people comes when the homosexual has found it impossible to be celibate. What does the church do? Does it drop its compassionate embrace and send him on his reprobate way?…. Or does it, in the face of a life unacceptable to the church, quietly urge the optimum moral life within his sexually abnormal practice?[2]
Smedes recognizes that each church community will have to answer these questions for itself, but he himself leans toward urging the optimum moral life within sexually abnormal practice. He is more explicit in “Second Thoughts” in the 1994 revised edition of Sex for Christians. While continuing to affirm that “the Creator intended the human family to flourish through heterosexual love,” Smedes nonetheless believes that “God prefers homosexual people to live in committed and faithful monogamous relationships when they cannot change their condition and do not have the gift to be celibate.”[3]
This is the pastoral accommodation approach to homosexuality. Accomodation is not affirmation. Those adopting this position do not endorse homosexuality as positively good and intended by the Creator. They acknowledge that homosexuality is a result of the fall. They also generally refrain from speaking of “same-sex marriage.” They want the church to uphold the creation ordinance of opposite-sex marriage and the church’s traditional sexual ethic. But they also want the church to be pastorally sensitive, adopting a compassionate embrace rather than driving such people away from the church.
As attractive as such an approach may be to some, it runs up against a major hurdle: the apparent teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (ESV, emphasis added)[4]
Verses 9–10 are in the literary form of a vice list,[5] and one of the vices is the practice of homosexuality. Paul’s teaching seems fairly clear: those who persistently practice these vices, including the practice of homosexuality, are the unrighteous, and the unrighteous are excluded from the kingdom of God. Paul states that among the membership of the church of Corinth there were those who had formerly been such sexually immoral people, but he says they are not such any more. They had repented and received cleansing and forgiveness in Christ. The implication is that such people would be excluded as long as they do not repent. This would seem to rule out pastoral accommodation of same-sex relationships. The purpose of this article is to engage in a careful exegesis of this paragraph and its immediate context (1 Cor 5–6) to see if that is in fact Paul’s teaching.
The Context: 1 Corinthians 1–6
Paul begins his first letter to the Corinthians by addressing factionalism (chs. 1–4). The church was divided based on different understandings of “wisdom” (σοφία). David Garland convincingly argues that some of the Corinthians had imbibed values from the surrounding culture that were antithetical to the message of the cross—striving for power, honor, prestige, status, and fleshly wisdom. In response, Paul shows how the wisdom of the cross annihilates all pride and leaves no room for factions based on following one supposed wise man over another.[6]
Then in chapters 5–6, Paul turns to the topic of church discipline and rebukes the Corinthian Christians for their failure to act as wise men who judge those inside the church. They claim to be wise and yet their toleration of grave immorality in their midst shows the hollowness of their claim. Already in 1 Corinthians 4, Paul sees the Corinthians as being “puffed up” with spiritual pride (4:6, 18–19). When he turns to the discussion of the church’s toleration of an egregious case of incest (a Christian man in a sexual relationship with his father’s wife), Paul uses this obvious moral failure on the part of the church to puncture their pride, “And you are arrogant (πεφυσιωμένοι)! Ought you not rather to mourn?” (5:2), and then again a few verses later, “Your boasting (καύχημα) is not good” (5:6).
First Corinthians 5:1–6:20 forms a unit that can be subdivided as follows:

5:1–13: Call to exercise church discipline in a case of incest
6:1–8: Rebuke of brothers taking each other to court
6:9–11: Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit?
6:12–20: Flee from sexual immorality

The theme of sexual immorality is clearly found in sections a, c, and d. Commentators have puzzled over how section b (Paul’s rebuke of brothers suing each other in the secular courts) fits in the surrounding context. Some have suggested that the lawsuits had to do with sexual offenses, perhaps related directly to the incest case of the previous chapter. But this is unlikely, given that Paul thinks those bringing the lawsuits should simply accept being wronged (6:7), counsel he would be unlikely to give if the lawsuits concerned sexual offenses. How, then, does this section on lawsuits fit in? Garland argues that in these two chapters Paul cites three appalling moral failures—the church’s toleration of an egregious case of incest; brothers taking each other to court; and Christians visiting prostitutes—to puncture the Corinthians’ pride in their supposed wisdom and spiritual superiority.[7]
Lexical Semantics of Select Items in the Vice List (1 Cor 6:9–10)
We have looked briefly at the context. We now turn to examine select items in the vice list. The vice list contains ten sins, but most of them (idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers) are not very controversial and not directly relevant for this article. However, the lexical semantics of three of the sin words—πόρνοι, μαλακοί, and ἀρσενοκοῖται—demands particular attention if we are to answer the theological question motivating this article.

πόρνοι | “the sexually immoral”

πόρνος, ὁ:  one who practices sexual immorality, fornicator[8]
It is believed that the words in the πορν- group were derived from the verb πέρνημι, which means “to sell, to traffic,” and which was particularly used in reference to slaves, both male and female, who were often sold to be used for sex.[9] In extra-biblical Greek, this word-group had a narrow application:  a πόρνη was a female prostitute, πορνεύω was the verb for prostituting oneself, the abstract noun πορνεία denoted the practice of prostitution, a πορνεῖον was a brothel, πορνογενής meant to be born of a prostitute, and so on.[10]
In the Septuagint, πορν- terms were used to render the Hebrew verb זָנָה (“have illicit intercourse”) and its cognates, זוֹנָה (“prostitute”),  תַזְנוּת (“prostitution, promiscuity”), זְנוּנִים (“prostitution”), and זְנוּת (“prostitution”). In addition to the use of such terms to refer to sexual immorality and prostitution, the terms were applied metaphorically to Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness, which the prophets deemed a whoring after gods other than Israel’s true spiritual husband, YHWH. Kyle Harper makes an important observation about how this metaphorical application influenced the gender dynamics of the term:
The metaphorical sense of זנה as idolatry would decisively influence the development of Greek πορνεία. The metaphorical meaning allowed spiritual fornication to be used with acts of male commission. This semantic extension reversed the gender dynamics that are inherent in the primary sense of זנה. In Hosea we first see men committing fornication, albeit of the religious variety (Hos 4:18; cf. Num 25:1; Jer 13:27; Ezek 43:7-9). In Second Temple Judaism, this reversal would feed back into the sexual sense of the term, so that sexual fornication became an act that men could commit.[11]
As a rule, the LXX used πορν- words to render the Hebrew זנה words. Although in extra-biblical Greek, πορν- referred to prostitution and therefore as primarily a female sin, in the LXX and in subsequent Greek-speaking Hellenistic Jewish literature the πορν- word-group underwent semantic expansion to cover all forms of sexual immorality (although πόρνη retained its original meaning, “prostitute”).[12] There are different kinds of πορνεία. This is supported by two locutions in the nearby context of our passage: “sexual immorality of such a kind (τοιαύτη πορνεία)” (1 Cor 5:1), implying that there are other kinds; and “because of sexual immoralities (διὰ τὰς πορνείας)” (1 Cor 7:2), which implies either multiple instances or multiple kinds of sexual immorality. In Greek-speaking Hellenistic Judaism, πορνεία is any sex outside of marriage. The term πορνεία was not restricted to heterosexual activity between two unmarried people (what we would call “fornication” today), although it certainly included it.[13] Any sexual encounter or relationship that does not occur within the holy bond of marriage can be called πορνεία, including incest (T. Reuben 1:6),[14] adultery (Sirach 23:22–23; T. Reuben 4:8; T. Joseph 3:8; cf. Matt 5:32; 19:9),[15] and same-sex relations (T. Benj. 9:1).
Focusing on Paul’s usage in 1 Corinthians 6:9, πόρνοι means those who engage in sexual immorality. It is indisputable that πορνεία in Paul does not mean “prostitution” but sexual immorality, specifically incest (5:1). A few verses later (5:9–11), Paul uses the cognate word πόρνος three times: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with πόρνοι—not at all meaning the πόρνοι of this world.” Paul’s usage of πόρνος is consistent with its meaning in all of its occurrences in the NT, where it uniformly means “sexually immoral person.”[16]The main lexica of New Testament Greek gloss πόρνος as “one who practices or engages in sexual immorality.”[17] This is reflected in several modern English versions, which render πόρνοι in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “the sexually immoral” (NIV, ESV) or “sexually immoral people” (CSB).
Words based on the πορν- stem (πόρνος, πορνεία, and πορνεύω) have undergone semantic expansion in Greek-speaking Hellenistic Judaism from their narrow extra-biblical usage in secular Greek, where the words had to do with prostitution, to a much broader meaning, sexual immorality in general.[18]  The term πορνεία means any illicit sex, that is, sex outside of marriage, and embraces a number of specific types of immorality.[19]

μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται | “men who have sex with men”

μαλακός: pertaining to being passive in a same-sex relationship
ἀρσενοκοίτης, ὁ: a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex[20]
These two words have understandably been the subject of much debate. Revisionists have put forward several alternative interpretations, arguing that the terms denote any number of things other than same-sex practice, such as “masturbation,” “male prostitution,” “economic exploitation using sex,” or “non-mutual, abusive pederasty.” All these revisionist theories have been refuted by scholars like David F. Wright and Robert Gagnon.[21] The most authoritative lexicon, BDAG, supports taking the terms as straightforward references to same-sex activity and gives no support to revisionist readings.
The adjective μαλακός has a semantic range that begins with non-sexual meanings such as “soft” in the literal sense (e.g., soft clothing, soft pillows, soft skin). Extending beyond the literal usage, the term can also mean “effeminate,” and then even beyond that “passive in same-sex relations.” In this last case, it refers to a man who by dress and makeup seeks to present as a female for the purpose of functioning as the passive partner in same-sex relations. In extra-biblical Greek, the term and its cognates refer specifically to the passive partner in a male-male sexual relationship.[22] That is clearly what Paul intends here.
Read More
Related Posts: