Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Thursday, March 24, 2022
The latest form of body dysmorphia—rapid-onset gender dysphoria—is fueled by extremely wealthy lobby groups with a vested interest in identity politics. Backed by a medical establishment for whom ethics is little more than a supine acceptance of technological possibilities, and enabled by a political class that lacks a moral backbone, these groups are shaping the country’s pediatric care. And the cost will be catastrophically high. 

The trans revolution reached new heights of absurdity last week when the BBC asked Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party’s shadow secretary for women and equalities, to define “woman.” Dodds proved singularly incapable of doing so; after saying that “it does depend what the context is,” she equivocated for several minutes and refused to give a direct answer. Her party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, later came to the rescue, telling Pink News that “trans women are women.” That is not, of course, an argument. In fact, by using the term “woman” without offering a definition, Starmer merely begs the question. But arguments and definitions are somewhat passé in our current political climate. Uncritical and obsequious recitation of the liturgical response that the progressive lobby demands is the order of the day. That not even all trans people buy into this mantra is never mentioned. They have, to use trendy progressive jargon, been made “invisible” by the political powers that be.
Dodds made a pitiful spectacle; she is an ironic victim of the anti-culture of endless inclusion that is now consuming the West. To be qualified for a job, one must have a basic understanding of the specific task at hand. The car mechanic needs to know what a car is; the brain surgeon needs to be able to recognize the brain. A politician tasked with safeguarding women’s rights should therefore know what a woman is and be able to articulate that understanding in public statements. “What is a woman?” hardly seems an unexpected or unfair question to ask the shadow secretary for women. And yet she fluffed it.
The rationale for the transgender movement is couched in arcane and rebarbative prose. But its underlying dynamic is nonetheless straightforward. It is based upon negations—denials and repudiations of traditional categories. Such categories, the gender theorists claim, create the illusion of an authority grounded in nature, posit ideological forms as the truth, and thus marginalize and exclude any who do not fit.
Read More

Nothing we do is done by our own power. God gave us the Sabbath to show us he is our provider. And, as Charles Spurgeon said, “God gave us sleep to remind us we are not him.” Before you drift into unconsciousness tonight, be conscious that rest is more important than doing one last thing, that God is your sustainer, and that he is trustworthy.

Honoring the Sabbath is an easy commandment to break. We diminish it to the hour or two we’re at church on Sunday morning and an afternoon nap. We justify ourselves by saying a 24-hour Sabbath is part of the old covenant and unrealistic in modern times. Taking a day off feels lazy, but that’s because we practice it wrong. If we were to rest in line with God’s created purpose, we would see it as a gift he made specifically for us (Mk. 2:27).
One-Seventh
Despite the fact that God commanded us to honor the Sabbath should be persuasion enough, there are a few notable reasons practicing Sabbath is good for us:

We reflect God’s image by remembering that he, too, rested on the seventh day of creation.
Sabbath rejuvenates us and our work.
Most of all, Sabbath reminds us that we are not our own providers.

In modern times, the idea of Sabbath—that is, abstaining from what we consider our job—seems foreign, but it would have seemed just as strange to the Israelites. When the Israelites wandered in the desert, God sent enough manna and quail to feed them each day; they literally had to go out and pick up their daily bread. On Fridays, he sent a double portion to feed them on Sabbath, too. In this, he showed himself to be trustworthy to give them what they needed, even on days they didn’t work for it. We have the same God and thus the same confidence.
Even when we aren’t doing something to justify our paycheck, God is our provider. Six days of productivity is well sufficient to cover our expenses on the seventh day—that was God’s design. In fact, God’s design includes a reminder that we trust God with a portion of our lives each day, whether we realize it or not.
One-Third
Like the Sabbath, to exalt our nightly rest above busyness is counter-cultural.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Nicholas T. Batzig |
Tuesday, August 2, 2022
Divisions, while undesirable, are, nevertheless, not necessarily schismatic in and of themselves. In fact, such divisions may actually serve to help foster unity by allowing various people in the one body of Christ to affiliate with those of similar theological and sociological persuasion without sharing the same ecclesiastical government.

The 20th Century will be likely be remembered as the Century of ecclesiastical ecumenism. The 21st Century is shaping up to follow suit–not simply because of a widespread desire for co-belligerency, but on account of a doctrinal reductionism that seeks to dilute Christianity down to the most basic creedal statements of the early church. One of the driving forces behind the push for ecclesiastical ecumenically is the quest for societal community–as evidenced by the rise of Marxist and Communist ideology in Western society. Ironically, many of those seeking radical community also (perhaps unwittingly) embrace elements of the radical individualism of post-modernity. Champions of our current ecumenism view previous communal labors for doctrinal continuity as being either archaic or overly restrictive. While doctrinal statements such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism, were once considered ecumenical–among various ecclesiastical bodies in the Reformed and Protestant world–they are now frowned upon (sadly even by many ministers who vow to uphold their teachings in a number of Presbyterian denominations). All of this leads us to reopen the question as to whether or not denominations and doctrinal divisions are antithetical to the unity of the church throughout the world.
In 1985, J.I. Packer delivered a lecture at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia titled, “Divisions in the Church,” in order to tackle the important issue of doctrinal and denominational unity and diversity. In this particular lecture (and in the subsequent related essay in The Collected Shorter Writings of J.I. Packer, vol. 2), Packer dealt with the following three categories: shameful divisions, inescapable divisions and dealing with divisions. Starting with the biblical call to unity among the one community of believers throughout the world, Packer noted, “Neither you nor I are the only pebble on God’s beach.” He then went on to affirm the unity that all believers have, regardless of the denomination in which they have bound themselves:
“The church may be pictured like the wheel of a bicycle. Christ is the hub. You and I are spokes. Because we are linked with Christ we belong to the church and have something to give by way of stability and usefulness to the rim of the wheel, that is, the church’s outward witness, worship and life. United to the one Saviour we are united to each other in the one universal church. This church is the family of God. It is also the body of Christ. The New Testament speaks of ‘members,’ not of the church, but of Christ; ‘membership’ is part of the notion of the church as Christ’s body. ‘Members’ means ‘limbs,’ not people who sit in pews and pay their dues but people vitally united to Christ–limbs, organs and units in his body. which is the visible church worldwide. The church is also the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Believers share in the life of the Spirit, giving and taking in the fellowship which the Spirit sustains. ‘Give and take’ is the constant formula of Christian fellowship.”
 Shameful Divisions
The Bible’s emphasis on the unity of all true believers–by virtue of their union with Christ and of the subsequent indwelling of the Spirit within each believer–is always at risk of being lost. In the New Testament, we find the Apostles laboring tirelessly to preserve the unity of the members of the body of Christ. Packer explained:
“Paul was distressed to discover that at Corinth…there were people separating into parties according to which was the favorite preacher for each group: ‘I belong to Paul,’ ‘I belong to Apollos,’ ‘I belong to Cephas.’ And evidently there were a few people who, in the face of this, tried to keep their end up as simple Christians saying, ‘I belong to Christ; I don’t know about you, but Christ is the one to whom I give loyalty.’ It distressed Paul that there should be divisions in that congregation.
If we are going to study divisions in the church, we had better recognize that we are studying something pathological. We are studying a form of spiritual ill-health in Christ’s body. Our study is compared to a doctor studying blindness in the eye or paralysis in the limbs. Division in the church means that ‘something is wrong.’ The body is out of sorts.”
Read More
Related Posts: