It is cruel to lock women behind bars with violent rapists. It is cruel to force teenage girls to change in front of young men in their locker rooms. It is cruel to force traumatized rape victims to sleep in dorms with men. And it is cruel to demand that women accept their own demotion and dehumanization, reduced to crude terminology to avoid offending the cross-dressers in charge. You can put a man in a dress, and he is still a man. And you can dress up cruelty in a cloak of compassion—but it is still cruelty, and we should say so. 

A November 3 post on X (formerly Twitter) from J.K. Rowling caught my eye recently. It was her comment on the decision of an Australian court to mandate that the ‘preferred pronouns’ of people identifying as transgender be used as a “matter of respect” to ensure “public confidence in the proper administration of justice.” As Rowling noted: “Asking a woman to refer to her male rapist or violent assaulter as ‘she’ in court is a form of state-sanctioned abuse. Female victims of male violence are further traumatised by being forced to speak a lie.” Indeed, forcing a woman to refer to the man who abused and raped her as ‘she’ seems a particularly grotesque form of gaslighting.
Rowling’s comment gets to the heart of something that is not commented on often enough: the manifest cruelty of the transgender movement. I’m not referring here to the mobs of trans-identified men that so often threaten violence towards women who dare to speak out—or, as in the case of Posie Parker’s visit to New Zealand earlier this year, actually perpetrate it. Nor am I speaking of the torrent of vile threats of rape that women like Rowling face from these vicious men in dresses. I mean the cruelty of the practices and policies imposed by those in power on women and girls in the name of the transgender movement, which have swept virtually every Western country in under a decade.
“Sad, Powerless, and Confused”
Many manifestations of this cultural shift have a sinister, totalitarian air about them. Scenes of men like Dylan Mulvaney winning female awards—Virgin Atlantic’s “Woman of the Year” is the latest—while being applauded wildly by men and women in the audience remind me of the crowds forced to give minutes-long standing ovations to dictators for fear of being recognized as dissidents. The cultural overlords are watching, and you’d better think this is fair and good and a bold step forward for ‘transwomen’ if you know what’s good for you. Mulvaney isn’t a one-off example, either—as of March, nine men have won ‘Women of the Year’ awards.
Then there are the high school males winning prizes like Homecoming ‘Queen,’ once reserved for those Walker Percy memorably described as “football girls in the fall with faces like flowers.” Now we are treated to photographs of pretty girls clustered around a jut-jawed gangly young man in long hair and a dress—it seems sadistic, somehow. The girls must smile; must affirm that this young man—who is so obviously a man—is a pretty girl, prettier than they are, a flower among flowers. The press and the LGBT movement and the idiots who chose him, of course, are wild with celebration—and there is more than a little warning in their cheers. Say he’s beautiful. Say it like you mean it. If you don’t, we’ll make you a national news story.
Of course, that only happens after the girls have been forced to share changing rooms and bathrooms with these young men. Girls have risked urinary tract infections rather than use the bathroom with boys. Girls have pled with adults to keep the boys out of their changing rooms, but even their tears do not shake the idealogues in charge.
Read More
Related Posts:

The intent of this text is to forbid men from identifying as women and women from identifying as men. It is a reaffirmation of the creation ordinance that God created both male and female. Creation of mankind is binary, and this text adds the additional tenet that our sex-identification at birth is permanent.  

“A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God (Deut. 22:5).”
The transgender movement has created another victim class in America.  Bruce Jenner (who dresses like a woman and goes by the name Caitlin) recently became a regular contributor on the politically conservative Fox News Channel.  Richard Levine (who dresses like a woman and goes by the name Rachel) is the Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Health. He, with his closet of dresses and cosmetics, publicly represents my country and sets policy for me and my health. He was recently declared a “woman of the year” by USA Today magazine. Will Thomas (now known as Lia Thomas) is a man who competes with collegiate female swimmers and wins every race.
The consequence of transgenderism is far-reaching.  First, in our day, any discomfort of Christians with transgenderism is considered prejudice, if not sinful.  Secondly, the study of modern history teaches us that within a generation, a victimization class will quickly evolve into the mainstream ethnos of a culture.  Nationally-known individuals become role models of acceptable behavior, especially with the imprimatur of the media and civil government. The abnormal becomes normal. Thirdly, it is also generational. Young people are being challenged today on social media (and in some public schools) to examine themselves to see if they also need to transition from one gender to another. Mere exposure leads to curiosity which leads to experimentation, and this often results in a type of addiction. Without the rudder of biblical ethics, our youth are the most vulnerable targets of this crusade.
As expected, this movement is bleeding into the church.  As if Christian parents do not already have enough to worry about!  Now they must fret that Johnny may come home one day and tell them that God made him the wrong sex. He may say that he feels like a girl trapped in a boy’s body. The road to gender change is fearful. It may begin with only a name change, but it can move to other stages such as 1) wearing dresses, 2) hormone therapy or, even more radical, 3) gender transition surgery.  For most evangelical parents, this would be like a Richter ten-point mega-earthquake hitting the house.
The Book of Deuteronomy speaks very clearly to the issue of transgenderism. “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God (22:5).”
Prior to verse 5 in this chapter, Moses tells us how to love our neighbor.  He gives several practical examples.  If our neighbor loses anything, and we become aware of it, then we are to help him to recover his loss.  This may require safe-keeping if we do not know to which neighbor it belongs, or if our neighbor is away from home. Negligence here is considered sinful (Deut. 22:1-4).
Mother birds who are nesting must be protected from death so that we may prolong not just the life of the mother-bird, but also our own — “so that you should prolong your days” (v.7). Compare this promise of long life with Paul’s words regarding the 5th commandment promising long life: “Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise) that it may be well with you and that you may live long upon the earth” (Eph. 6:2-3).
Fences do in many cases actually make good neighbors, especially when there is potential danger on our property (v.8).  We don’t grow corn, cotton, and soybean in the same field (v.9).  It’s impossible to pull a load with a donkey and an ox hitched together (v. 10).  Mixing wool and linen together only makes sense when both are pre-shrunk (v. 11).  Tassels on clothes were to remind the Israelites of the commandments of God (v. 11; Lev. 15:39); although, since we have the written word of God today, we do not need such reminders.
In the midst of all this wisdom and exemplary acts of kindness, there is verse 5.  Our approach to it should be the expectation that it too instructs us as to what constitutes both wisdom and kindness.
First, it should be noted that the text is not simply about the style of clothing.  It says nothing about what is fit for a man or a woman to wear. It’s not about women wearing pants or men wearing pink shirts.  It’s not about humorous school skits where boys dress up as girls. The style of clothing will change from culture to culture over time (even though I still cannot in good conscience wear a pink shirt). A Scottish kilt is not clothing designed for women.  It is the apparel of a man which signifies patriotism as well as giving advantage in movement skills, especially during war. The concept of the freedom of conscience allows both men and women considerable latitude in clothing style in a variety of particular social venues.  The most important characteristic of dress for women is modesty (1 Tim. 2:9).
The intent of this text is to forbid men from identifying as women and women from identifying as men. It is a reaffirmation of the creation ordinance that God created both male and female. Creation of mankind is binary, and this text adds the additional tenet that our sex-identification at birth is permanent.
What is prohibited here is dressing daily as the opposite sex (within the boundaries of a particular culture that has adopted a certain dress code) so as to nullify the biological sex that God gave you.  This text forbids one sex from seeking to transition into the other – or identifying as the other after God has made you what you are.
It is an abomination to God. It is something that disgusts God because it is contrary to his character and his creation ordinance. Because it is disgusting to God, it should be disgusting to us.  This is wisdom, and actually it is kindness too.  It is a call to repentance and faith in Christ. To uphold this truth is love.  It may be tough-love, but it is love nonetheless.
The evangelical church tends to be far behind the curve in dealing with moral issues as they arise in society. We tend to appoint study committees which take years to come to a conclusion.  We tend to write reports in language that only few people can understand, and with too many words like “therefore” and “nevertheless.”  We need to be bold and clear in dealing with this matter because the Bible is bold and clear. The future of our children depends upon it.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.

We should not be surprised to see more men and congregations leave the PCA for the EPC, ECO, RCA, and other American Presbyterian and/or Reformed denominations out of NAPARC. The pipeline in the direction of churches that are philosophically committed to more peaceful “bigger tent” expressions of Reformed faith and practice is certainly fuller than the pipeline leading to more theologically narrow NAPARC-affiliated denominations.

At each year’s meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Stated Clerk gives an annual report at the beginning of business. In his report, the Clerk takes an opportunity to reflect on significant developments in the life of the Church. His words stir up excitement among the brethren as the Lord continues to build His church around the world, and especially as the PCA continues to grow.
However, the Clerk’s report routinely includes lamentable news of church closures and transfers out of the PCA. As part of his first Clerk’s address before the Assembly, TE Bryan Chapell addressed news of several recent departures from the denomination. Since the 41st General Assembly in 2013, the Clerk’s printed statistical report has included details about the addition of individual ministers to the Church as well as the loss of ministers from the denomination.
Recent blog posts by TE David P. Cassidy (here and here), TE Travis Scott, TE Jon D. Payne (here and here), TE Ryan Biese (in a multi-part series found here) and others have publicly suggested (from a variety of perspectives) that perhaps now is the time for churches and ministers who are out of step with either the culture or the published doctrine of the PCA to leave the denomination. If now is indeed the time for some brothers to leave, then I suspect that we would see individual ministers and congregations doing just that.
As we review the Minutes of the 48th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, what information can we glean about recent losses from the denomination? As the title of this blog post suggests, we can research the Minutes for information about recent departures by asking, “where are they now?”
The various lists of congregations added, transferred, or dissolved is found on pages 134-136 of the Minutes as part of the statistical portion of the Stated Clerk’s report. Similar lists of individual ministers added to the PCA, dismissed to other denominations, or otherwise removed from office are found on pages 136-142.
After comparing the statistical reports on pages 134-136 with other information I could find online (and with a few quick phone calls to several church offices), here are my summary findings (by no means infallible) for the changes in the roster of PCA congregations through 2019 and 2020:
Read More