April 14
To Heidelblog and Matthew Adams for the part of Adams's article that is quoted in the Heidelblog post. Adams's article supports the current PCA Overture 17 that bars those men who identify themselves by their ongoing struggle with homosexual desires from serving as officers in PCA churches.
Matthew Adams's full article on the subject can be found at:
https://mdadams.substack.com/p/the-reality-and-hope-of-sanctification
Perhaps the Catechisms need to be revised. Sanctification is talked of as being a finished work and an ongoing work in the Scriptures. The same goes with our dying to sin.
Overture 17, IMO, is a homophobic reaction to Christians who are struggling with sinful desires by Christians who believe that a significant part of their struggle with sin should have been finished. And that is seen by the reaction of how one identifies oneself.
If we only have one identity, Overture 17 would have a point. But we don't. We are a new person in Christ. But like Paul in Romans 7 and James in James 3 we continue to struggle with sin. We should ask this: At what point do we no longer identify as the tax collector from the parable of the 2 men praying? For at the point we no longer identify with the tax collector, we then, fitting his profile, start to identify with the Pharisee. Romans 2 and James 2 warns us about judging others because we are either guilty of the same sins (Romans 2) or of different sins (James 2). The latter is why James tells us that mercy trumps judgment.
It's not that people supporting Overture 17 claim to be sinless. But unless those men who support it can say that they no longer have to battle their own sinful desires, such as heterosexual sinful desires, to single out those whose battle is with homosexual desires as being below them is to discriminate against those with homosexual sinful desires--btw, we who struggle with heterosexual sinful desires identity ourselves as normal. And why would they discriminate except that they see those who have homosexual desires but are successfully controlling them as threat to the Church and perhaps to themselves. And if the threat is unwarranted in enough cases, then to react to all cases of men battling homosexual desires in the same way fits the description of a phobia.
We have many identities, not just one. And not one identity sums up any of us though we have one identity that is most important and critical. But that most important can critical identity doesn't eliminate our other identities. That most important and critical identity seeks, throughout our life time, to make the other identities subservient to it, as it should.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 18
To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the part of Trueman's article, quoted by the linked to Heidelblog post, that called those who tried to stop Judge Duncan from speaking at Stanford a 'mob.' While Trueman blamed the reaction on Post Modernism's effects on those at Stanford and said that they didn't recognize Judge Duncan's humanity, Trueman ignored a lot of history in making his assessment.
Carl Trueman's full article can be found at:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/03/a-tale-of-two-student-protests
I don't think that Trueman's analysis of the two protests is accurate enough. Sure, it is easy to respond in kind to unjustified cancel culture protests that are designed to shut down someone's speech. And by answering in kind, I mean that one can be dismissive and insulting. But such an analysis focuses intently on the actions of the protesters and superficially on the reasons why they protested the way they did.
History might show us some reasons for why some from Stanford protested the way they did. The history of the LGTB community, not just its history in America but in its history in all of Western Civilization, contains nothing less than the way those at Stanford protested Duncan. No one beat Duncan, fired him from his job, forced him to be chemically castrated, incarcerated him, or murdered him for his attempts to speak at Stanford. And yet, for centuries that has been the history of the LGBT community in America and Western Civilization until lately.
Do we understand how that history might come into play in the protest by those at Stanford? Do we understand that when long-standing social injustices are addressed, the corrections can sometimes become overreactions and even mimic a phobic reaction to anyone who seems to sympathize with those who practiced those injustices. Here, we might ask Trueman how those in the LGBT community were being recognized as being human by those from the past who have persecuted the LGBT community.
We could also ask Trueman how Judge Duncan's professional past recognizes the LGBT community when he has worked to deny them equality in society (see https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/legal-docs/downloads/39_lgbt_groups_oppose_confirmation_of_stuart_kyle_duncan-1.pdf ). Instances of how Judge Duncan worked to deny the LGBT community equality in society include defending Alabama's attempt to take away parental rights from a lesbian mother over her adopted child and filing a brief that opposed marriage equality (see https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21067634/trump-judge-transgender-cruel-kyle-duncan-united-states-varner ). From this information, can we see why Trueman was afforded more respect at his speaking engagement than Judge Duncan?
And if Trueman claims that the "mob" failed to see the humanity of Judge Duncan and thus 'othered' him, as evidenced by their rude behavior toward him, how would Trueman interpret Luther's anti-Semitism, Calvin's persecution of heretics and witches, the Puritans' treatment of Quakers, Jonathan Edwards's support for slavery, and J. Gresham Machen's racial prejudice? Would Trueman group those from Church history who 'othered' their targets with the Stanford "mob" who 'othered' Judge Duncan?
Certainly how those at Stanford who mistreated Judge Duncan have no justification for their actions. But no justification for actions should never be confused with denying that actions can be understandable. And what makes the inappropriate reactions to Judge Duncan's attempts to speak at Stanford understandable here is history--both that of the LGBT community and Judge Duncan's professional career. And we can't afford to minimize or dismiss the effects that that history has without implying that those in the LGBT community deserved the injustices they suffered in the past.
If we really want to understand those who inappropriately protested Duncan's presence, we will look at those protests in the light of history before making any analysis. Trueman did not seem to adequately take history into account here.
