Some Christians say you’re not required to use a person’s preferred pronouns, but it’s courteous to do so if you’re asked. It’s simply a matter of being a kind Christian. Whether it’s courteous or kind to comply, however, depends on the nature of what is being asked of you. Complying with a transgender person’s request might seem like a minor change in your behavior, but it’s not. 

All we’re being asked to do is change one word. It’s a simple request. Just use a different pronoun. It might seem like a no-brainer for a believer to comply. Why cause unnecessary tension by refusing a request to be courteous?
Even some Christians encourage the church to practice “pronoun hospitality” and use the preferred pronouns of a person who identifies as transgender. They believe it’s a simple act of kindness that engenders relationship and avoids unnecessary distress in a transgender person’s mental health.
But it’s not that simple. It’s not that we don’t want to be kind or are indifferent about their well-being. Rather, it’s because we care about truth, fidelity to God, and their well-being that many believers abstain from this social ritual. Here are some things to consider.
First, it’s important to distinguish between using preferred pronouns and using preferred names. Here’s why. Names are a matter of convention, something that is a subjective preference. Pronouns, however, are not a matter of convention but are a reference to objective reality (biological sex). That’s why they can’t be chosen.
To say that names are a matter of convention means that names can be chosen because they are not inherent to who a person is. For example, traffic light colors are also a matter of convention. Green means go and red means stop. It’s possible our society could have determined different meanings for traffic light colors—red meaning go and green meaning stop. There’s nothing inherent about green that means go. It was simply a matter of preference (a convention) that green was chosen for go, but it could have been otherwise.
In the same way, names are a matter of convention. My wife and I considered naming our daughter Anya, but we ended up choosing Sarah. Either one would have worked. There’s nothing inherent about the name Sarah that refers to our daughter. Furthermore, our daughter could one day change her name to Shelly if she desired. That’s because names are a matter determined by preference and can be chosen.
For this reason, I can abide by a person’s preferred name. In many cases, I don’t have any other option since they decide what name to share with me. I understand some parents insist on using their child’s given name because of the uniqueness of the relationship. I’m not arguing that preferred names should be used, but that they can be used.
I don’t use a person’s preferred pronouns, however, since pronouns refer to an objective reality—one’s biological sex. Whether you are male or female isn’t a matter determined by preference and, therefore, can’t be chosen.
For example, age is also a biological reality and not chosen. Dutch positivity guru and television personality Emile Ratelband decided to identify as a 49-year-old when he was in his late sixties. No one should be obligated to refer to him as the younger age because age is a biological reality that can’t be changed and is therefore not a matter of preference. In the same way, sex is a biological reality that also can’t be changed and also is not a matter of preference. Using a pronoun that refers to a person’s chosen sexual identity is like using a number to refer to person’s chosen age. Both are illegitimate because neither age nor sex is a matter determined by choice.
Some people, however, claim that language evolves and pronouns can now refer not only to biology but also to “gender identity” (a person’s internal sense of what “gender” they believe themselves to be). Though that might be believed by a segment of society, there is also another large portion of the population that doesn’t accept that shift in language. In fact, they believe words matter and allowing/collaborating with the change in what a pronoun refers to is a problem. They don’t see the attempt to change language to embrace transgender ideology as benign.
Second, when talking to a person, you don’t use their pronouns. You just use their name (“Kaitlyn, can you meet for coffee?”) or “you” (“You did an amazing job”) to refer to them. In other words, declining to go along with a person’s preferred pronouns will not likely upset that person since they’re not usually present when you use their pronouns.
Pronouns are most often used when you’re talking about someone with another person.
Read More
Related Posts:

As history’s most widely read preacher, Spurgeon is probably quoted more than any other pastor—25 million words of his sermons are available in 63 printed volumes. The London pastor’s life was marked by suffering, opposition, loss, depression, and physical pain. “Imagine placing your foot in a vice,” he said, describing his gout, “and tightening the vice as far as it will go.” Yet Sunday after Sunday, he stood and delivered. On June 7, 1891, a sick Spurgeon preached what would be his last sermon, on 1 Samuel 30:21–26.

Jesus preached his last public sermon on or about Tuesday, March 31, AD 33.
The message, found in Matthew 23:1–39, warns against hypocrisy—especially of proud preachers who “preach, but do not practice.” On Friday, April 3, history’s greatest preacher was executed outside Jerusalem in history’s most extraordinary display of humility.
Three days separated his last sermon from his last breath.
Every pastor will preach his last sermon—but unlike Jesus, most of them won’t know it. Here are a few examples from history.
John Calvin
John Calvin led world-changing reforms and wrote commentaries on 48 books of the Bible. J. I. Packer called his Institutes “one of the wonders of the literary world.” Through it all, Calvin maintained an incomprehensible preaching schedule: twice on Sunday and several times during the week for a total of “10 new sermons every 14 days.”
But on February 6, 1564, the toll on his body was clear to all as he was carried to church in a chair. Theodore Beza reported that Calvin preached with “asthma impeding his utterance” (understood as a fit of coughing that filled his mouth with blood). In physical pain and weakness, the reformer preached his last sermon.
I’ve found no record of Calvin’s text that day, but on his deathbed, he completed his commentary on Joshua. In the introduction, he observes that God raises up gifted leaders for his church and then takes them away, but “he has others in readiness to supply their place . . . his mighty power is not tied down to them, but he is able, as often as seems to him good, to find fit successors.”
Days later, John Calvin died at age 54 on May 27, 1564. He was buried in an unmarked grave.
John Flavel
Calvin’s work influenced John Flavel, who preached for 41 years in circumstances most American pastors would consider intolerable. Educated at Oxford, he was renowned for expositing Scripture and preaching to the heart. But under King Charles II, the state dictated what England’s churches could preach, how they could worship, and whether they could meet.
As a dissenting pastor, Flavel was excommunicated from his church and forbidden to come within five miles of it. He preached illegally for years—in his own home, in the homes of others, or in the woods late at night, caring for the flock entrusted to his care. Along the way, he managed to publish enough works to fill six large volumes that would deeply influence later generations of preachers, including Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield.
On June 21, 1691, Flavel visited Exeter and preached on 1 Corinthians 10:12: “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” Five days later, he died of a stroke at age 64.
Jonathan Edwards
Flavel profoundly influenced Jonathan Edwards, “the most brilliant of all American theologians.” While 17 of Edwards’s sermons were published in his lifetime, many more have been published since. His works now fill 26 volumes published by Yale University Press. Edwards has the distinction of delivering America’s most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
His farewell sermon at Stockbridge, Massachusetts—on January 15, 1758—is his last recorded sermon in the Yale collection. Edwards’s text that day was Luke 21:36. The extant notes are slim but they’re vintage Edwards, holding forth law and gospel.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Edward T. Welch |
Monday, April 3, 2023
Even his opponents could see this: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances” (Matt. 22:16). Of course, their remarks were a form of flattery by which they hoped to trap Jesus, but they were true remarks nonetheless. Jesus’s imperviousness to the opinions of others was part of his teaching with authority, and it was one of the features that distinguished his ministry from that of all the other Jewish leaders.

It might be encouraging to know that fear of rejection has been a problem for a number of illustrious people throughout history. For example, Moses warned the leaders and judges of Israel about this very thing (Deut. 1:17). He knew that people reverence the opinions of others, show favoritism, and honor some people above others because they fear rejection from those whom they consider important.
This human tendency was an especially important issue for Israel’s judges. For example, if an Israelite had to judge a case involving a prominent metalworker, he might have experienced a certain pressure to make the judgment light or waive the penalty altogether. Otherwise, the metalworker might reject the judge the next time he needed his help. In other words, judges could be controlled by a defendant if the defendant had something that judges wanted. In such situations, people would become big and God’s justice would become small.
I wonder how many of us fear those who have more money, more power, more education, more attractiveness than we do. We could ask this question: Do I single out certain people and groups for their approval and acceptance because they can give me what I think I need? It could be a boss who does my annual review, a neighbor whose friendship enhances my status, a person who could help to make the church budget, or a spouse whose acceptance and approval are all- important.
King Saul is a specific biblical example of someone who experienced fear of rejection. In 1 Samuel 15, God commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites. God then gave the armies of Israel grace to defeat these people, “but Saul and the people spared Agag [the king of the Amalekites] and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good” (1 Sam. 15:9). When the prophet Samuel confronted Saul with his gross disobedience, Saul confessed his sin but also justified it: “I feared the people and obeyed their voice” (1 Sam. 15:24).
Saul may have made this justification for one of two reasons. Perhaps he really did feel pressured by his generals to bring home some of the spoils of war. In that case, his excuse was indefensible in light of God’s endless warnings not to fear people. Or perhaps Saul reasoned that Samuel would accept his excuse because fearing others was such a common, human thing to do. After all, since fear of others is part of our fabric, how can we be held responsible for it? Regardless of which alternative represents Saul’s true motives, his fear of others had catastrophic results: it was the reason Saul lost his kingdom.
The Pharisees in the New Testament shared King Saul’s fear of rejection. They craved acceptance and approval from the people, and they were afraid they wouldn’t get it. Many Pharisees boasted that they didn’t believe in Jesus, and they even accused those who did of living under a delusion (John 7:45–49). Yet some leaders could not ignore Jesus’s authoritative teaching and miracles, and they quietly believed in him. In other words, they believed that Jesus was sent from God and was the Messiah for whom they had hoped and prayed.
You’d think that with such a conviction these leaders would become Jesus’s disciples immediately and seek to persuade the others to believe. Yet that didn’t happen. Their faith quickly withered. Why? They feared confessing their faith because of the possible reactions of those in the synagogue, “for they loved human praise more than praise from God” ( John 12:43 NIV). They felt they needed the praise of people. They feared rejection more than they feared the Lord.
Our Own Fear of Rejection
It sounds all too familiar. Sometimes we would prefer to die for Jesus than to live for him. If someone had the power to kill us for our profession of faith, I imagine that most Christians would say, “Yes, I am a believer in Jesus Christ,” even if it meant death. The threat of torture might make some think twice, but I think most Christians would acknowledge Christ regardless. However, if making a decision for Jesus means possibly spending years being unpopular, ignored, poor, or criticized, then many temporarily put their faith on the shelf. “Death is not imminent, so why hurry into such a rash decision?” “There will be time later to get things straight with God.” In other words, “Kill me, but don’t keep me from being liked, appreciated, or respected.”
Remember that one word: evangelism. I am sure that many teens would rather die than have their friends catch them hanging out with the church youth group or doing Christian drama on the streets. Aren’t the most popular mission trips the ones that take us far from our own neighborhoods? Africa is easy; our own neighborhoods are a constant challenge. Has anyone consistently had the boldness and clarity of Jesus to testify about the gospel? Never. Has anyone consistently avoided the fear of man in evangelism? Certainly not. There is a “foolishness” inherent in the message of the cross. The clear proclamation of the gospel does not make us look good. It doesn’t make us popular.
“Peer Pressure” and the Praise of God
The praise of others—that wisp of a breeze that lasts for a moment—can seem more glorious to us than the praise of God. Jesus himself told the Jewish leaders, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” ( John 5:44).
Today we might call the Pharisees people pleasers. We would say they “struggled with peer pressure.” Since all of us are affected by it at one time or another, we are almost sympathetic toward such behavior. But people pleasing is perhaps the most tragic form of the fear of man. Teenagers constantly make unwise decisions because of it. Adults, too, look to other people for their cues. We wait for others to take initiatives of love. We spend too much time wondering what others may have thought about our outfits or the comments we made in the small-group meeting. We see opportunities to testify about Christ, but we avoid them. We are ruled by our own reputations. As we follow these Old Testament stories, the problem feels as though it is other people, but, in truth, the problem lies within us.
Jesus stood in stark contrast to this Pharisaic concern. He did not show favoritism; instead, he reached out to male and female, rich and poor, and people of all races and ages. He did not take a poll of what was popular before he began to teach; instead, he spoke truth that was often unpopular but could penetrate the heart. “I do not receive glory from people,” he said ( John 5:41). Even his opponents could see this: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances” (Matt. 22:16). Of course, their remarks were a form of flattery by which they hoped to trap Jesus, but they were true remarks nonetheless. Jesus’s imperviousness to the opinions of others was part of his teaching with authority, and it was one of the features that distinguished his ministry from that of all the other Jewish leaders.
This attitude also characterized the ministry of the apostle Paul. He exhorted his churches to be imitators of him as he was an imitator of Christ (1 Cor. 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:6). By this, he was encouraging his disciples to imitate his life and doctrine, an imitation that included seeking the praise of God rather than men (1 Thess. 2:4). Paul was not a people pleaser. He was a people lover, and because of that he did not change his message according to what others might think. Only people lovers are able to confront. Only people lovers are not controlled by other people. Paul even indicated to the Galatians that if he were still trying to please man, he would not be a servant of God (Gal. 1:10). That is how seriously he took the fear of man.
Not that this came naturally. Paul had the same fleshly instincts we do, and he knew it. As a result, he beseeched the churches to pray for him: “[Make supplication] also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel . . . that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak” (Eph. 6:19–20).
Excerpt taken from Chapter 2: “People Will Reject Me”, When People Are Big and God Is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man by Edward T. Welch. Used with permission
Related Posts: