When Evil Is Unmasked
From Ryan Anderson to Jesse Singal, all were guilty in Chu’s eyes of “compassion-mongering” and “gatekeeping,” disagreeing only on “how the gate is to be kept.” Maybe trans “affirmation” surgery would make some people happy, and maybe it wouldn’t, but for Chu, that wasn’t the point. The point was that “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want,” and “no amount of pain” could justify withholding it.
First, they said nobody was transing kids. Then, they said it would be no big deal even if people were. You know what comes next, because you’ve seen this movie before: “Now it’s happening, and it’s a good thing.”
“I wrote about what justice looks like for trans kids,” tweets Pulitzer-winning “trans” journalist Andrea Long Chu about his new cover essay for New York magazine, in which he makes “the moral case for letting children change their bodies.” His thesis is shockingly simple: The freedom to change one’s body is a basic human right. Children are humans. Thus, they should have the freedom to change their bodies. (WORLD Opinions editor Albert Mohler covered this story when it broke earlier this week.)
Chu acknowledges that this is different from the common argument that “affirmative” treatments are necessary for “trans” kids’ health. While Chu does in fact believe that puberty blockers will benefit such children, his reasoning is not primarily medical. As his own subtitle states, it is “moral,” according to his twisted definition of “morality.”
This essay should be read as the logical continuation of Chu’s 2018 essay about his own post-surgical regret, written for The New York Times (which, ironically, he now excoriates as insufficiently pro-trans).
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Transgression Is Passé
Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Nietzsche noted it takes a long time for societies to grasp the significance of the death of God. But we are surely at that point now. Our artistic class makes that very clear, and so it is time to put these artists in the dock: We get it. You hate Christianity and the Western cultures that it informed.One of the hallmarks of the modern age has been the death of the sacred. Nietzsche’s Madman understood that this was one of the central consequences of the death of God. But he, unlike the polite atheists he berated in the town square, knew that this was both an exhilarating and a terrifying matter: Now human beings would themselves have to rise to be gods, to create their own systems of value, their own sacred rites, their own meaning of life.
This was never going to be either easy or stable. Nor has it ultimately led human beings to transcend themselves and ascend to some higher, übermenschlich plane. Today we witness merely the desecration of all that was once held to be sacred. Our culture remains trapped by the sacred idioms of the past and doomed to the constant and increasingly conformist transgression of old boundaries.
Take, for example, the latest “art” promoted by the European Union: A series of photographs, currently on display at the European Parliament building, taken by lesbian artist Elisabeth Ohlson. The images depict, among other things, scenes of Jesus surrounded by gay men dressed in leather bondage gear. Now, if Jesus were alive today he would certainly be speaking to such people, as he spoke to prostitutes and tax collectors in first-century Palestine. But Ohlson claims that her work represents Christ “loving LGBT rights.” Whether all gay people like to see themselves caricatured in bondage gear might itself be an interesting question to ask. The left’s favored word “fetishization” came to my mind as I looked at the pictures. What is not interesting, however, is the artwork itself.
The display represents both the bankruptcy of modern culture and its inability to offer anything even approximating a positive vision for humanity. For generations now the artistic establishment has been in thrall to the notion of transgression. But transgression is only significant if there is something—some rule, some custom, something sacred—to transgress. Without such, transgression itself rapidly degenerates into a series of empty gestures that tend to become both more extreme and more vacuous at the same time. Art then ceases to be about embodying and transmitting cultural value and is instead a momentary iconoclastic performance that parasitically and paradoxically depends upon resurrecting icons that have long since fallen. Only because there is a folk memory of religion does the general public have some notion that these banal photographs are meant to be shocking. And only to the increasingly marginal numbers of actual Christians are they truly so.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Woke Churches Erasing Women
This demolition job on sex, biology and reality is not only senseless and silly, but it is also diabolical and destructive. And if these folks are having a real hard time telling us just what a woman is, that is because these same churchmen seem to have been struggling of late to tell us what biblical Christianity is. The two go together.
When the church follows the world instead of the living God, it is heading down the same slippery slope to hell as the world is. When the church sells its soul to the devil in order to be hip, trendy, cool and “relevant,” you can be sure it is just as lost as any pagan ever will be.
We have seen countless examples of the church selling out and simply imbibing of the secular left’s radical agenda items, including all things woke. The latest example of this should come as no surprise. The Church of England has been on a long, slow downward spiral, and its latest inanity is simply another indication of a church that has well and truly lost its way.
Now it seems it no longer knows what a woman is. Or at least some within its ranks have gone down this moronic path. For a church that was so proud of how it treated women and sought to put them in leadership positions, to now all of a sudden not knowing what a woman is, is the height of woke insanity. Consider how one English newspaper puts it:
The Church of England has admitted it does not have a definition of the word woman. A bishop said yesterday that the meaning of the word used to be ‘self-evident’. But he added that there are now ‘complexities associated with gender identity’ which a church project about sexuality and relationships is exploring. The admission, in an official report prepared for the gathering of its governing body this weekend, stirred criticism last night. It comes despite Anglicanism continuing to oppose same-sex weddings – and only recently allowing women to be bishops.
Campaigner Maya Forstater said: ‘When the Government redefined women through the Gender Recognition Act, the Church of England could have stuck with its long-established understanding, which makes sense whether your starting point is biology or the Bible. ‘It is shocking that they so readily gave up the definition of man or woman for the state to amend, as if this fundamental truth did not matter.’
And Rev Angela Berners-Wilson, who in 1994 became the first woman ordained as an Anglican priest, told The Telegraph: ‘I’m not totally happy with it. I mean, I do think certain things like “men can’t have babies”, just to say the complete obvious thing.’ But she added: ‘But I think we need to be very sensitive and maybe we need to re-examine our boundaries.’ It comes after months in which the definition of the word woman has gripped politics. Several Labour MPs refused to define it, while leader Sir Keir Starmer said it was wrong to claim that only women could have a cervix.
By contrast, Cabinet ministers have been clear that biology defines women and that anyone born male should not compete against women in sport. The church was put on the spot in one of almost 200 questions submitted to its ‘parliament’, the General Synod, in York this weekend. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11000401/Church-England-woman-decide.htmlGood grief. No, there are not complexities involved here. Men and women are different, and have been ever since God first created them.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Shepherds Must be on Guard
Many times, when pastors do the best they can in confronting threats to the church, wolves still prevail. Certain people come in, wreak havoc, and move on to the next pasture, interrupting another unsuspecting flock, seemingly without any real consequence. It’s even more tragic when church families are led astray by such people, leaving the flock to their own detriment. God’s undershepherds can feel defeated in such cases, thinking they failed in their duty. However, pastors should not think this way.
The Pastor’s Position
Pastors carry an impossible responsibility. Having been in ministry for about a decade, I’ve come to learn this reality firsthand. Feeding God’s sheep, protecting the flock from wolves, and not letting yourself fail in the process is an utterly unattainable assignment for feeble men. Praise God there’s more to the story.
Jesus Christ builds and protects His church. He faithfully nourishes and keeps her until the time He receives her to Himself, taking her to His Father’s house, the place He has prepared for her. Thus, as individual members of His church, we all rely on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of faith, the great Preserver of our souls. What a blessing it is to be children in God’s house, with such a sure foundation. As that great hymn reminds us,
The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord
She is His new creation by water and the Word
From heav’n He came and sought her to be His holy Bride
With His own blood He bought her and for her life He died
Further, our Savior promised that He would personally build the church and she would live on indestructibly, despite the efforts of Satan and the reality of death (Matt 16:18, Rom 16:20). God’s power preserves the church, and His purposes to build the church will stand. In this sense, the church isn’t dependent on any human effort. Her origin and destination are heavenly, and so is her sustained existence. God does all the work in building the church, all the way through. We are His workmanship, not our own (Ps 100:3, Eph 2:10). He gets full and total credit for the Bride’s arrival at that future marriage supper.
Amazingly, the channel of God’s power in preserving His church is godly leadership, duly appointed for the task. Thus, there exists a commission to local church elders not only to guard themselves, but to guard the flock (Acts 20:28). Though this use of human channels is astounding, it isn’t unusual for God, as He ordinarily uses means to accomplish His varied purposes in the world. To save people, He uses preachers (Rom 10:14, Rev 11:3). To provide for people, He uses givers (2 Cor 8:1ff). To protect His church, He uses undershepherds (John 21:15).
Caring for the flock of God is a high and worthy calling – a “fine work,” Paul calls it (1 Tim 3:1), full of joy, blessing, and future reward. At the same time, the task is tremendously complex, unceasingly present, and deeply serious—and the Lord has positioned select men between the sheep and threats to their livelihood, using them to preserve His work.
Devotion to the Ministry
No pastor will be effective in his calling if he has misplaced or marginal devotion for the work to which God has called him. Of course, in making such a statement, both devotion and work must be rightly understood.
Devotion has in view an unwavering, zealous commitment. The early church was devoted to prayer and biblical teaching (Acts 1:14, 2:42), and the apostles led by example in that (6:4). Similarly, pastors are called to have an unwavering and zealous commitment to their work of ministry (2 Tim 4:5). Pastors must be thoroughly devoted to their calling.
Ministry is all about serving people. There are a variety of expressions in ministry, but at the core lies sacrificial service to others. Stephanas was praised for his devotion in ministry, made evident by the sacrifices he made to visit Paul in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:15-17). Priscilla and Aquila were Paul’s “fellow workers” (Rom 16:3) who were instrumental to the planting of churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, even sacrificing their own living space for the sake of church meetings (Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19). However it is defined, ministry is always rooted in serving other people.
For pastors, God’s local flock is the ministry priority. As much as some local church leaders may enjoy administrative work, public speaking, online influence, community involvement, or Bible study, their ministry is merely a façade if their ultimate priority isn’t to serve the sheep. The pastor’s job isn’t properly defined as merely studying and talking; instead, his job is to care for the people of God sacrificially. Many have jokingly remarked, “Ministry wouldn’t be so difficult if it weren’t for the people.” Yet, ministry would cease to be ministry if people weren’t involved. Devotion to ministry means selfless commitment to people—God’s people.
Jesus taught His followers about devoted ministry when He assured them that He is the good shepherd. There are many shepherds in the world, but there is only one good shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. He defined His goodness in this way:
The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. (John 10:11-15)
This is total devotion to ministry. The incarnate Christ had such an unwavering, zealous commitment to His people that He was willing to lay down His life for them. Far from being a mere martyr or example, Jesus’ death for His people was an effectual act of service that established the Church and continues to impart life to each one who believes. He truly is the good shepherd.
Pastors are called to reflect Christ’s devotion to ministry as they shepherd His sheep. This means that devotion to pastoral ministry is about protecting God’s flock at the utmost cost, even dying daily (1 Cor 15:31).
Read More
Related Posts: