The LGBT culture is alive and flourishing within Disney. During a recent virtual meeting, a group of Disney filmmakers together with employees said they have been given the freedom to add “queerness” and LGBT characters to children’s programming, but they believe a lot more needs to be done. Such was expressed during an “all-hands” meeting following controversy regarding Florida’s parental rights bill that prohibits classroom teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

“M. I. C. K. E. Y, M. O. U. S. E!  Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck!  Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck! …”  Many of us remember this sing-along song that opened the Mickey Mouse Club program when as children we were enjoying the biggest name in entertainment. That, of course, was the wonderful world of DISNEY. At one time, Walt Disney’s family-oriented programming was enjoyed by almost everyone, adults and children alike. However, times have changed and so has Disney, so much so that ole Walt is probably “turning over in his grave”. Disney now promotes the progressive anti-family and anti-Christian LGBTQ woke culture that the founders of BLM intended for the destruction of the nuclear family.
Chances are that if you want to watch a good movie, sporting event, or have your child watch an animated cartoon program, more than likely it will be connected to the vast empire that Disney has become, owning a good portion of the television and entertainment world. Just three years ago Disney, for $73.1 billion, bought the film and TV assets that were held by 21st Century Fox, marking the transaction one of the largest media mergers in history.
The above is just for starters. Add to that the list of Disney-owned companies and you begin to get a sense of just how big Disney really is. That list includes ABC, ESPN, Touchstone Pictures, Marvel, Lucasfilm, A&E, The History Channel, Lifetime, Pixar, Hollywood Records, Vice Media, and Core Publishing among many others.
Included are recognizable brands and film franchises as the following: Star Wars, The Muppets, The Marvel Cinematic Universe (but not the X-Men – yet!), Disney Princesses/Princes (such as characters from Cinderella, Mulan, Frozen, Aladdin, and The Lion King), The Chronicles of Narnia Franchise, The Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise, Pixar Films, (such as Toy Story, The Incredibles, and Cars), The Winnie the Pooh Franchise, The Indiana Jones Franchise, Grey’s Anatomy and other popular ABC shows.
The LGBT culture is alive and flourishing within Disney. During a recent virtual meeting, a group of Disney filmmakers together with employees said they have been given the freedom to add “queerness” and LGBT characters to children’s programming, but they believe a lot more needs to be done. Such was expressed during an “all-hands” meeting following controversy regarding Florida’s parental rights bill that prohibits classroom teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis has signed the bill into law.
In a series of videos released by journalist Christopher F. Rufo, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Disney executive Karey Burke told attendees of the meeting that she is the “mother of two queer children – one transgender child, and one pangender child”. Wanting to see more LGBT characters in Disney programs, she states, “We have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and yet we don’t have enough leads and narratives in which gay characters just get to be characters and not have to be about gay stories.” Rufo, in a tweet, said that Burke added in the video that she wanted a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities.
Latoya Raveneau, directing two episodes of The Proud Family on Disney Plus, reports she previously had heard “whispers” – when she worked for other studios – that Disney does not allow LGBT characters in its programs. But she said that’s not the case. The Proud Family includes a same sex married couple. She says, “My experience was bafflingly the opposite of what I had heard, and the showrunners were super welcoming of LGBT characters.” She further states, “Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not-at-all secret gay agenda…I don’t have to be afraid to, like, let’s have these two characters kiss in the background. I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness [to projects].”
Another Disney production coordinator, Allen Martsch, discussed adding LGBT content to the upcoming Disney series, Marvel’s Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur. Martsch applauds Disney saying, “They’ve been really open to exploring queer stories, …we take place in modern-day New York – so making sure that that’s an accurate reflection of New York. So I put together a tracker of our background characters to make sure that we have like the full breadth of expression.”
He concludes by saying, “…It’s not just about a numbers game of how many LGBTQ-plus characters you have,…The more centered a story is on a character, the more nuanced you get to get into their story. And especially with trans characters, you can’t see if anyone is trans – there’s not one way to look trans. And so kind of the only way to have these canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, canonical bisexual characters, is to give them stories where they can be their whole selves.”
Yes, Disney holds great power to persuade children and adults into believing it is kind and loving to accept this perverted worldview. Add to this the promotion of the LGBTQ lifestyles by politicians and lobbyists, then a sense of the battle takes on a greater sense of urgency. And it gets more complicated when the President of the United States aids and abets the issue. Just recently some observed a Transgender Day of Visibility and President Biden has declared his support of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria to undergo body mutilating surgeries or use puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to look more like the opposite sex despite unknowns about the long-term side effects.
Standing in opposition to the above procedures the American College of Pediatricians said, “There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender believing youth,”… ” This means that youth transition is experimental and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.”
Also, on their website, acpeds.org has a page stating that “Transgender Interventions Harm Children” and that puberty blockers may cause both mental illness and permanent physical harm adding that such is not only experimental but dangerous.
Besides Disney, now Apple is lending its strength to opposing gender legislation. That makes two very powerful entities. According to an article in Politico, Apple’s communications, government affairs and legal offices are working with policymakers and advocacy groups to plot out strategies in filing court briefs in cases involving LGBTQ “rights.”
Fred Sainz, their senior of corporate communications, recently pressed leaders of fellow Fortune 500 companies to denounce an order by the Texas governor that called for child abuse investigations of parents who provide transgender children with “gender-affirming” procedures despite opposition from doctors. Sainz asked these leaders to lend their company’s name to the issue because Apple will lend its name and logo to fight for LGBTQ rights. All Americans will be affected by decisions made by Disney and Apple.
Note:  I believe it is important to distinguish some terms.  The so-called “anti-LGBTQ” laws are not against the 1% of the population who identify as transgender or the 3% who identify as homosexual (percentages according to the YouGov poll released in March). Instead these laws should rightly be termed parental rights legislation or child protection laws to protect the vulnerable from possible lifelong harm.
What is a parent to do? What is a Christian to do? How are parents to handle the area of children’s programs and entertainment? How do we respond? Boycott Disney? Throw away your Apple phone? Good luck with that! Even if that were possible, the extensive effects of Disney influence are worldwide. I think it is safe to say that one thing Americans will not give up is their freedom to be entertained. I’m probably including myself. I love sports. Many people do and to give that up would be a challenge.  “Don’t mess with my entertainment” might be the prevailing attitude.
I remember reading about the contrast between Christians in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and Christians in America during the same time period. The difference was Christians under Khrushchev were tested by persecution while Christians in America were tested by their freedoms. Can it be said that our freedoms have blinded us and are holding us hostage, preventing us from bringing every thought captive to the word of God and keeping us from seeing the threat at our doorsteps? Some say that only time will tell, but I believe time is already telling! Let’s open our eyes and be accountable to truth.  Let’s seek to be transformed by the renewing of our minds in the Word of God instead of being conformed to the world system and its culture.
Clete Hux is Director of the Apologetics Resource Center headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. A Teaching Elder in the PCA, he has pastored churches in Alabama and South Carolina.

Losing Our Religion is an autobiography disguised as an indictment of evangelicalism, and not a very ecumenical one at that. Moore is not interested in convincing the reader. He does not make arguments but rather opts for emotive reflections, flippant diagnostics. It is a self-indulgent project and others of Moore’s sentiment and experience indicate the accuracy of this characterization. 

Russell Moore is not quite an ex-vangelical, at least not yet. He has not lost his faith, he assures us, but he has lost his religion. Put another way, he has not left evangelicalism. Evangelicalism, he thinks, has left him. Given that evangelicalism initiated the divorce, it is she, not Moore, in need of repentance. An altar call, a come to Jesus moment, is overdue.  
Moore’s new book, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America (LOR) is first and foremost autobiographical. As a species of “nonvert,” Moore’s story is a personal, emotive, experiential, internalized journey with external events providing only the occasion for expression, or post hoc justification, thereof.
The book is nearly always polemical in tone but hardly ever polemical in substance. Moore does not seem all that interested in convincing the reader of anything other than the worthiness of the author’s own cause—his personal credibility apparently meant to bear the load of otherwise rarely corroborated claims and analysis. Rather, Moore offers a cathartic experience for other not-quite-ex-vangelicals who have exited Southern Baptist institutions, or the Convention itself, over the past few years. Victimhood is the currency of choice in Moore’s story, and those who share his story—all one-time Big Eva members—are now positioning themselves as a sort of evangelical ex-pat cadre possessing a unique ability to critique their former country because of the trauma endured there.
At the outset, Moore’s insistence that 1) he hasn’t changed his “theology” (6), but that 2) it is the “religion” of evangelicalism that has morphed into a “cold, lifeless dogma or tribal belonging,” is difficult to accept (19). In 2004, Moore was expending his energies at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood warring against the feminization of God, warning of the revolt against natural gender and concomitant gender roles, and cautioning against evangelical accommodation of post-Lawrence v. Texas (2003) cultural norms on marriage and family. In other words, his primary concern was leftward drift in evangelical political sensibilities and ethics.
Fast forward to today and, as editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, Moore is calling for new line drawing in the “gender wars” between egalitarians and complementarians. As Aaron Renn has expertly observed, Moore’s call for a realignment, a reset, of evangelicalism should be read as an expression and application of the late Tim Keller’s strategy to “redraw the boundaries of the movement by eliminating complementarianism and replacing it with anti-fundamentalism.”
Indeed, the last chapter (“Losing Our Stability”) of LOR, in a section labeled, “Embracing New Communities and New Friendships,” features a mea culpa for “Russell Moore, circa 2007” who criticized Beth Moore as a “gateway drug” to feminism. Presumably, the male Moore is referring to his article from the period in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society championing biblical patriarchy. Russell Moore circa 2023 describes the old, masculine Russell as “arrogant” and “mistaken.” (228). It was he, not Lady Moore, that was the real “theological lightweight.” (230). (Last year, he tweeted that, in fact, Beth Moore is a “gateway drug to sanity,” not feminism.) In this way, Moore admits his own shifts away from accepted, standard evangelical convictions, at least on this front. But the gender wars are not what really irked him.
What instigated Moore’s break with evangelicalism (often used by him interchangeably with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC))? What explains his shift, at least in terms of emphasis, on key cultural and theological issues?
Moore tells us up front: “The issues—political fusion with Trumpism, Christian nationalism, white-identity backlash, the dismissing of issues such as abuse as ‘social justice’ secularism, and several others.” In Moore’s telling, these are the “issues” dividing the church and “almost every friendship I know.” (11).
This was when the “altar call”—Moore’s euphemism for the essence of evangelicalism that also signals an unrepentant evangelicalism—the “Come to Jesus” meetings, changed. “I hadn’t changed my theology, or my behavior, at all,” he writes. In Moore’s mind, “pro-life and pro-family” stances were perfectly consistent, even in the present context, with being “pro-racial justice and pro-refugee.” “What I had done, as the president of [the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission], was refuse to endorse Donald Trump.” (6).  
All his troubles began with his never-Trumpism. Moore, a self-professed adherent to the Billy Graham Rule, was simply maintaining a Biblical sexual ethic for politicians. What Moore was punished for, in his telling, is nothing but moral consistency. He is a true evangelical, a victim of reactionary evangelical tribalism.
Paradoxically, the Moore of LOR is something of a reactionary tribalist himself. It is the Christian nationalists who are “secular,” it is the Trumpsters that are cynical, it is the disaffected white middle Americans that are identitarians, and so on. Evangelicalism may be a big tent revival but not big enough for the likes of them. Moore—and all sensible people—has not changed, or at least not changed for the worse. On the contrary, he has broken free from his “Stockholm syndrome level of loyalty to my Southern Baptist identity.” (9).
The last straw was the sexual abuse report published by the Houston Chronicle (7-9). Moore claims he was chastised behind closed doors by Southern Baptist leaders for platforming Rachel Denhollander—he does not name her explicitly, as is his practice throughout the book for both friend and foe. This is anecdotal and lacks any corroboration in the book, as is the alleged resultant campaign of “psychological warfare” against him. And so, Moore’s narrative remains unassailable; the reader must accept the author’s experience and the precipitating facts cannot be debated.
What is clear is that this period of Moore’s life affected him deeply, acting as his religious crucible:
“On the other side of the reverse altar call, I started to question everything… That began a period not just of questioning all my assumptions, but also of simultaneously grieving my lost religious home and my own burdened conscience, recognizing complicity in participating for so long in something that now seemed both inane and predatory. I couldn’t help but wonder if the plot twist to the story of American conservative Christianity was that what we thought was the Shire was Mordor all along. I pretend that all of that is past me, but it lingers, in the ringing in my ears of the stress-induced tinnitus that persists to this day, and that fact that I am still waiting for one sleep without nightmares about the Southern Baptist Convention. But here I am, an accidental exile but an evangelical after all.” (10-11)
Anyway, that’s the formula, the bridge too far: Donald Trump—or rather, mass evangelical electoral support for Donald Trump—coupled with the supposed coverup of sexual abuse in SBC churches. Why could Beth Moore see the light when others—those more aligned with Russell Moore circa 2007 on the egalitarian-complementarian divide—could not? A reassessment was in order lest evangelicalism descend into a morally dubious, hyper-masculine, fundamentalist hellscape. (He calls the post-2016 era an “apocalypse.” (171)) But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Adeline A. Allen |
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Christians understand marriage to be an institution for a man and a woman, united to each other for better or worse and for the procreation and the raising of children. Marriage is also a covenant that signifies the mystical union between Christ and His Church. When fewer of our neighbors and fellow citizens enter into marriage, fewer of them get to partake of the blessing of the intrinsic good that is marriage.

Who voted for which party in the recent midterm elections? Turns out 59 percent of married men and 56 percent of married women went with the Republicans, as well as 52 percent of unmarried men. But, for unmarried women: A whopping 68 percent of them went for the Democrats. It seems that, increasingly, men and married women are Republicans, but unmarried women are Democrats.
The wide gulf between sex and marital status is important. If there are enough differences between men and women as well as between married and unmarried people—habits, presuppositions, inclinations, outlooks, goals—now add to the mix the polarization of political opposition.
Let’s take a look at the group so concentrated on the left, the unmarried women. If marriage is what brings men and women together, politically and otherwise—more on that latter point below—what might marriage in the horizon for the currently single women look like? Already, marriage is a vanishing phenomenon these days—it’s increasingly happening only for a select portion of Americans: the affluent and the religious. For everyone else, not so much.
Read More
Related Posts: