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:

Were the Puritans aligned in their eschatological views? Not quite. This article examines various Puritan theologies of eschatology that emerged between the 17th and 18th centuries, focusing on seven prominent Puritan writers and their unique perspectives. We’re going to look at Owen, Goodwin, the Mathers (father and son), Edwards, Turreting and Wittsius.
Each of these Puritan writers offers unique interpretations of eschatology that draw on specific passages from the Bible, particularly the book of Revelation. Their arguments, however, were not without their weaknesses. For example, premillennialists like Cotton Mather faced the challenge of reconciling their beliefs with passages that suggest a more spiritual interpretation of the end times, while postmillennialists such as Jonathan Edwards grappled with the problem of evil in a world where Christ’s reign was believed to be imminent.
Consider this article an opportunity to reflect on the diversity of positions within a group of Christians often thought of by some as homogenous; within the Puritan movement, there was substantial variety even as these men agreed on the central tenets of the gospel.
John Owen’s Progressive Revelation
John Owen (1616-1683) believed in the progressive revelation of God’s truth. In his work “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom” (John Owen, “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom,” in Shaking of the Kingdoms of the World (1651) in Works, 8:312-39.), Owen posited that the Second Coming of Christ would be preceded by the triumph of the gospel, which would occur through the gradual conversion of people around the world. This understanding of eschatology is rooted in the idea that God’s purpose and plan for humanity are revealed incrementally throughout history, culminating in the full realization of God’s kingdom on earth.
Owen’s eschatological perspective can be seen as a response to the pessimistic outlook of many of his contemporaries, who believed that the world was in a state of irreversible moral decline. By contrast, Owen emphasized the transformative power of the gospel and the potential for spiritual renewal in the hearts of individuals. He argued that as more people embraced the message of Christ, the world would gradually be transformed and prepared for Christ’s return.
One of the main strengths of John Owen’s progressive revelation is its emphasis on the unfolding nature of God’s plan for humanity. This view aligns with the broader biblical narrative, which demonstrates a pattern of God revealing His intentions and purposes over time through various covenants, prophetic messages, and ultimately, through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Owen’s approach to eschatology is rooted in the understanding that God’s truth is gradually disclosed, which is consistent with the structure of Scripture.
Despite the optimism of Owen’s eschatology, critics have noted that his reliance on the progressive revelation of God’s truth leaves room for ambiguity and uncertainty. For example, some have questioned how the triumph of the gospel can be measured and when it will be sufficient to usher in the Second Coming of Christ. Additionally, Owen’s interpretation can be challenged by biblical passages that suggest a more sudden and cataclysmic end to human history, such as the descriptions of the “day of the Lord” found in both the Old and New Testaments (see Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Oba 15; Zeph 1:7,14; Zech 14:1; Mal 4:5; Acts 2:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 6:17; 16:14).
Thomas Goodwin’s Premillennialism
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) focused on the millennial reign of Christ. He argued for a literal interpretation of the 1,000-year reign described in Revelation 20:1-6, positing a physical resurrection of some saints and a spiritual reign of Christ as a precursor to the millennium and then Christ’s physical return and the final judgment (Works, 1:521). In The World to Come (1655), he detailed his arguments in favor of this interpretation, which is commonly known as premillennialism.
Goodwin’s understanding of the millennium is rooted in a belief in the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy, particularly the visions described in the book of Revelation. He contended that the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth was a crucial component of God’s plan for humanity, during which time believers would enjoy a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity (Goodwin, 1672). By adhering closely to the text, Goodwin’s view provides a straightforward understanding of the end times, which can be appealing to those who seek a concrete and unambiguous eschatological timeline (Goodwin 1672). Goodwin’s eschatology emphasized the future vindication of the faithful and the ultimate establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.
However, critics of Goodwin’s premillennialism have noted that his interpretation relies on a mostly literal reading of Revelation, which is a highly symbolic and apocalyptic text. Although Goodwin acknowledged that many things in Revelation were symbolic of events, places, or people in church history, his was a historicist reading that leaned heavily literal. Some argue that the 1,000-year reign should be understood metaphorically, representing a spiritual reality rather than a physical one. By interpreting the 1,000-year reign in a strictly literal sense, Goodwin’s view may struggle to account for the broader context and purpose of the book of Revelation, which is intended to convey spiritual truths through symbolic imagery. Additionally, critics argue that Goodwin’s interpretation overlooks other passages in Scripture that suggest a more spiritual or metaphorical understanding of the end times.
Increase Mather’s Postmillenialism
Increase Mather (1639-1723) was known for his postmillennialist beliefs. He argued that the millennial reign of Christ would be a spiritual reign characterized by the conversion of the Jews and the triumph of the gospel. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation (Mather, 1669), he detailed his interpretation of the end times and the significance of the Jewish people in the unfolding of God’s eschatological plan.
Read More

Christians are not passive participants in this world. Instead, God has called us to push His message of reconciliation forward and against the opposing spiritual forces so that the world may know the love of Christ and that the symphony of nations would glorify God. In other words, the flock is perhaps most protected when doing what they were created to do. In this, living in obedient and humble devotion to God’s Great Commission, strengthening and fortifying the heart takes place—both in individuals and the covenant community of believers.

Often when we think of pastors, we might associate the agrarian function of a shepherd who provides nourishment and physical guidance to his flock with the spiritual leadership of the local church office. When recently asked, “how does a pastor protect the flock?” I found myself initially thinking in terms of the appeal given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:13, “Purge the evil person from among you,”—which presumably finds its foundation in the similar refrain found in Deuteronomy, “So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” The danger I began to experience in my mind as I mistook the intention of these passages was a tendency to over-anticipate evil within the camp. Whereas elders are called to deal swiftly with wolves who may be masquerading as sheep, I found myself focusing primarily on the threat of wolfl-y sheep. In other words, I had begun to view God’s people, his children, as the enemy.
The shepherd must keep a close watch on the flock so that sin is not permitted to fester and multiply. I grew up raising livestock and know firsthand the importance of identifying and treating sickness early. When I was little, I remember one of our animals contracting pink eye, and as quickly as possible, we had to quarantine the infected to protect the healthy. Understandably in the days that followed the initial discovery of sickness in one animal, all others were watched closely. Medication was prepared. A plan for additional quarantining was established. But in all this anticipation, we would never entertain the worst-case scenario—a premature “downsizing” of the herd. There was, in other words, long suffering in devotion and care for the animals’ well-being and the obvious reality that they weren’t the problem at hand.
In contrast to the illustration of sickness in the herd, we also encountered actual threats from outside predators. When wild animals were known to be in the area, our concern was simple—intrusion and subsequent death. And on the few unfortunate occasions such a breach occurred, we had to act swiftly “to purge the evil from [our] midst.” In all of this, the biblical principle is demonstrated analogously: the threat to the flock originates on the outside. Ephesians 6:12 says, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” The real enemy from whom the church needs protection is the ancient serpent with his legion of followers.
Protection as Biblical Calling
How, then, do the Scriptures practically frame the ministry of protection assigned to elders? It would seem the calling of an elder to protect involves two specific exhortations: 1) protect the sheep from the false teachings of the enemy—myths and heresies—and 2) protect the sheep from the false comforts of the enemy—sin and ungodliness.
Protect the Truth of the GospelFirst, the pastor is called to protect the flock from false teaching. Paul, in his first recorded letter to Timothy, urges his pastoral protégé to prevent “certain persons” from teaching any “different doctrine” and to keep them from devoting themselves to “myths” and “endless genealogies.” As Paul says, the result of such deviations will result in “promoting speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.”[1] In other words, the integrity of the gospel, as the center point of one’s trust in God, becomes crippled when impure theology spreads within the church.
Read More
Related Posts: