July 21
To Heidelblog and Helen Joyce for the segment of her talk/interview on how parents who supported gender affirming care for a child has to live with the guilt of supporting the mutilation of their child. This was posted on Heidelblog.
We Christians would like to think that all of the gender dysphoria has a simple explanation that blames social pressure. And thus we ignore what medical science says as well as how the majority of people who have transitioned find relief through gender affirming care.
Yes, there are those who regret their decision to transition. But from what I've seen, those people are in the vast minority.
We need to realize that other civilizations have seen gender dysphoria before we did. Some Native American tribes have recognized up to 5 different genders and they celebrated those who were not cisgendered.
I am not saying that transitioning is right. But we simply don't know all of the causes for gender dysphoria and the desire of some to transition. And until then, yes, we stay with what the Bible says while not speaking arrogantly as if we always know why a person has taken measures to transition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Heidelblog and Joe Carter for the portion of Carter's article that complains about how Pride Day is becoming a religious holiday and that it is against the Gospel to recognize the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism in society. This article was posted in Heidelblog.
Joe Carter's full article can be found at:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lgbt-pride-month-became-religious-holiday/
We need to make a distinction between how our nation's Founding Fathers defined religion from how many of us religiously conservative Christians who are also Culture War warriors or veterans of it are defining religion. With the former group, only the recognition and veneration of a superior supernatural being is a religion. With the latter group, any commitment that exceeds one's commitment to God is a religion. And though each use of the word has a context that justifies its definition, when referring to society and life outside the Church, the second definition can be seen as manipulative.
Yes, we see a lot of Pride demonstrations now that we didn't before. And why shouldn't we see them considering how the LGBT community was oppressed and marginalized for centuries in this nation. But their suffering doesn't phase many of us religiously conservative Christians because we think that they deserve such marginalization because of their sins. Consider the following Joe Carter quote from the part of his article that was not cited above:
'Because the LGBT agenda of normalizing homosexuality and transgenderism conflicts with Christianity (at least in its non-apostate forms), to “eliminate prejudice” requires anathematizing the beliefs of Bible-believing Christians. In the future the celebration of LGBT views will likely be compelled. But for now, every American is simply required to choose a side.'
The question I have for Carter is this: Is the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism in society any different from the normalization of other religions in our society? After all, other religions are blatantly anti-Christian because they preach another gospel. But does that mean that it is our Christian duty to demand that society oppress and marginalize homosexuals and the transgendered? If the answer to that question is a 'yes,' then why shouldn't we also do away with the Establishment Clause from the 1st Amendment. If the answer is 'no,' then why is it our Christian duty to convince society to oppress and marginalize the LGBT community? Why is it that we can consider the following of false religions as being normal in society while objecting to the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism in society?
Former groups that were or are still marginalized in society, such as women and people of color, were so treated possibly because our government was following Aristotle's lead on who qualifies as a citizen. If we promote the oppression and marginalization of the LGBT community in society, are we saying that such people do not have the capability to be counted act as citizens? Or are we demanding that society excommunicate the LGBT community from public life?
If we use the fact that homosexuality and transgenderism are unnatural, then we might consider that same-sex behavior (SSB) has been observed in around 1,500 species of animals. We might also do well by reading how medical science is observing possible physical causes for gender dysphoria in people. Here we might ask if nature is giving some people mixed messages.
There is no doubt that the LGBT community has many of us religiously conservative Christians spooked to the extent that we are now phobic indicated by how we are trying to get society to alleviate our fears by disappearing that community. Is that what the Scriptures demand when preaching the Gospel?
Why must the necessary Christian calling on the LGBT community to repent include seeking to oppress and marginalize that community in society? Again, we don't treat those from other religions that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment might be an exception to the rule in that the blog in which this comment was blocked may not be a conservative blog.
Around July 30
To Talley and her comment that strongly disagreed with my comparing the debate between socialism/communism and Capitalism to her egalitarian view of the sexes vs gender role theology. In my comment she is objecting to, I took a Martin Luther King Jr. approach to the communism vs capitalism debate by noting that both sides have strengths and weaknesses and thus we should seek to blend the two. Talley believes that there nothing redeemable in any version of gender role theology. This appeared in a discussion that followed her article that opposed Gender Role Theology. She claimed that it was part of a slippery slope to LGBTQ+. This article appearsd in her blog Flesh Of My Flesh: Reflections On Gender, Sexuality, Singleness, And Marriage This blog is hosted by Patheos. Some of my comments in response to the article are still there. It would be helpful to read those comments to get a good gist of the conversation
Blog article can be found at:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/fleshofmyflesh/2023/07/gender-role-theology-a-slippery-slope-to-lgbtq/
The comment I am responding to can be found at:
Talley,
Let’s take a look at the previous biblical points. The Bible presents the relationship between Christ and the Church as a model for the relationship between a husband and a wife. At the same time Galatians says that there is no difference between male and female. And the context of that passage in Galatians tells us where there is no difference. And so I must apply both sets of Scriptures. And so the New Testament presents both truths and does not consider them to be contradictory.
How is gender role theory comparable to racism? Perhaps for some forms and applications of gender role theory, that is the case. And thus that some points can be made in the comparison. But there is a significant difference between the sexes that does not exist between races. And thus, how much you can use a comparison between the two to establish your point is very limited.
I understand that the New Testament was used to support slavery. And yet Paul gives mixed messages about slavery because he condemns those who traffic slaves, if memory serves. In addition, Paul was working with the current economy of his time with a deep concern for how the behavior of slaves can affect the reputation of the Gospel.
But when it comes to using the relationship between Christ and the Church to illustrate the relationship between the husband and the wife, he is stating something new; he isn’t accommodating something that was part of the status quo. So again, the comparison between misusing the Scriptures to support slavery and using the Scriptures to support every form of gender role theory is problematic.
I am not saying that everything that is said in evangelical patriarchy is right. But the New Testament makes distinctions between men and women in the home and the Church, but not in society, while stating that men and women are equal and dependent on each other.
But if we take an all-or-nothing thinking approach, neither your side nor the side of evangelical patriarchy has anything to learn from each other. And here, remember the Martin Luther King Jr. quote that I provided. And I believe, that taking an all-or-nothing thinking approach is the result of the reductionism that is at the base of this portion of your theology. That if we are equal, there can be no differences in roles between the two sexes in the context in which the New Testament teaches it. When we absolutize a principle as WE understand it, we put ourselves into the position of telling God what He can and cannot say.
People can misinterpret the Scriptures and their errors can lead to abuse. People can misapply the Scriptures to the same end. But it is post modernism that says if an idea can be used to abuse others, the idea must be false. And so I am not interested in how people can find ways to interpret the Scriptures out of a post modern concern.; I am interested in what the Scriptures say for themselves—I hasten to add that I sometimes resist what the Scriptures say. And those very same Scriptures address how they are misused. And so I am concerned about being guided by the Scriptures so that I neither abuse nor dehumanize others. After all, I lean toward Marx and Socialism. And I am also concerned with avoiding the absolutizing of some human understanding of a principle or rule that would have me dictate to God what He can and cannot say.
BTW, my reading list is full and so if I get to look your references up, I will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 2
To Nicholas Batzig and heidelblog for the post that quotes part of Batzig's blog article on how wise pastors learn from the past great theologians.
Nicholas Batzig's full article can be found at:
https://www.feedingonchrist.com/blog/post/the-shoulders-of-giants-the-counsel-of-the-wise
Wise people do learn from the past, but they tend to do so without becoming traditionalists. Why? It is because traditionalists are the mirror image of narcissists. Both extoll their favorite time periods to or nearly to the point of believing that those in their favorite time period have everything to teach those from other time periods and nothing to learn from them--to borrow and adapt the phraseology of a Martin Luther King Jr. statement. For while traditionalists favor selected time periods of the past to irreverently praise, narcissist choose the present.
Yes, we can and should learn from Augustine through to Luther and Calvin through to the Westminster Devines with the latter being neither a college nor pro sports team. But do we presume that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Devines have nothing to learn from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King Jr., James Cone, William Barber, Noam Chomsky, Howard Inn, Critical Theory, and CRT? Note that some in that list are not Christians but have important things to say about society and one's nation. Would Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen, both of whom struggled with harboring personal racial prejudice, have benefited from reading MLK, James Cone, and CRT?
Mark 7:1ff speaks to both traditionalists and narcissists. It does so because of how both groups so elevate their favorite time periods. And that is just what the Pharisees whom Jesus confronted did. They elevated their traditions so high that their traditions became substitutes for God's Word.
Wise people do learn from the past; but they also learn from the present. For if we don't learn from both, we put ourselves at risks of becoming either traditionalists or narcissists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around Aug 1
To NorrinRadd and her comment to me (you will have to find the comment once you access the article, her comment begins with the word 'AFAIF.' She objected to my comment on egalitarianism vs gender role theology because I am arguing that equality between the sexes and gender role theology do not necessarily contradict each other. The article in which our comments our posted and NorrinRadd herself disagree with my claim. This comment was posted in the article Gender Role Theology: A Slippery Slope to LGBTQ+. That article was posted on the Flesh Of My Flesh: Reflections On Gender, Sexuality, Singleness, And Marriage blog hosted by Patheos.
The article involved can be found at:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/fleshofmyflesh/2023/07/gender-role-theology-a-slippery-slope-to-lgbtq/
NorrinRadd,
You're correct that it is bookended by mutuality. And that is my point! That the two do not contradict each other in God's Word. It is only when we absolutize the relationship between Christ and the Church as a model for marriage or we absolutize mutuality and equality that we end up with reductionism. To include both is not reductionistic. To overshadow either one by the other is to be reductionistic.
In addition, Christ is our Savior, but in this context, submission is one of the subjects. Sacrifice, which I did not focus on, is also one of the subjects. Mutual dependence, which is something I already mentioned, is another realization.
So you can try to say to me that I am reductionistic, but you would have to be specific here since I am trying to put equality and imitating the relationship between Christ and the Church in which submission is explicitly mentioned on equal footing. Talley, for understandable reasons, is saying that submission, which is part of gender role theology, can't be part of the mix.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around August 7
To William Allen and his article that asks for the one word that defines the national character of the U.S. He suggested that initially that word was the word 'equality.' His article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
It seems that the national character of the U.S. is hiding in plain sight from the writer. Only we should realize, unlike Allen did, that our national character has not changed since our nation's allegedly idyllic beginnings. That word is 'intolerance.'
Here we should note that equality has never been the central motif of public opinion. How could it be when slavery was followed by Jim Crow and continued systemic racism while Native Americans were ethnically cleansed from the land and other ethnic groups were exploited for their labor. And that does not include how women were subjugated by men. Even the Kim Davis case required Federal court intervention to remedy the intolerance she was showing to 2 homosexuals who desired to get married.
Part of the intolerance is a, perhaps almost, phobic fear of the lack of conformity. And that existed in the beginning, when the differences were racially determined, to now, when the differences are more ideologically defined and/or by membership to the cult of a self-described Messianic figure. Our authoritarian responses to those who show dissent reveal both our intolerance and the fear that lurks beneath the surface of our intolerance.
Our national character always has been, currently is, and will possibly be the cause of our demise in the future, if the environment or war don't get us first, defined by our fear-driven intolerance of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment