Mercy Me or Else

 

“Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” Psalms 85:10

 

In these days of full grown 60’s love and its love child Ad Hoc Gospel mercy like rights are now demanded. And this “mercy” is demanded of Christians who pose a threat to the LGBT community by not agreeing that homosexuality is accepted in God’s kingdom on earth.

In the domain of “peace and love” LGBT advocacy a Christian saying so is “judgmental” and therefore not merciful. The Christian is therefore deemed unJesus-like. For the advocates, the millenniums-old Christian narrative must be changed, adapted and ’queered’ so that mercy can be given without knowledge of wrongdoing.

No one has to tell me that life is hard. We all look for relief from what life brings us. Yet, those who advocate for mercy towards those who practice homosexuality look for relief for those who bring hardship onto themselves. “But”, some tell me, “they are born with homosexuality. They can’t help themselves. They were born “this way”. So, they want Christians to back off and give homosexuality a pass. And yet, there is no doubt that same-sex attraction is a pernicious addiction that is fostered to full-grown habit by #LGBT advocacy.

Homosexuals “shall not pass” into the kingdom of God. Truth, reason, nature, Scripture (1 Cor. 6:9-11, among other texts) – none of these will give homosexuality a pass. Neither will science. There is no “gay gene.”

Does not the word “mercy” imply a transgression has been committed? The word, “grace”, another Biblical-panacea term is swapped by religious advocates for “mercy” as the means to the same end. These two words are used interchangeably to invoke a softness towards behavior ‘formerly thought’ unacceptable by the ‘unenlightened’.

There will always be a demand for mercy without the truth of the transgression. But for the thief on the cross, his transgression was known. It was nailed above his head and he acknowledged it. He asked Jesus for mercy and received it.

The bad character on the other cross wanted mercy without truth: “Get us out of this!” 

Aren’t you the Messiah? He said. “Rescue yourself-and us too!

But, mercy without truth is actually sympathy for the devil.

“`

One wonders if the flight from woman, the de-feminization and de-humanization of society, toward a cold exo-human reason plays a major role in redefining mercy as licentiousness.

Marginalizing Truth…

 

…to Fit Around One’s Agenda

Below, a recent Tweet by the same Jesuit priest referred to in my previous post. James Martin, as he often does, redefines the Gospel so as to frame the #LGBT as “intersectional” (I’m using a popular SJW word) with those who may be on the fringe of society – in other words, those deemed as being over-looked and under-loved. The LGBT’s one-of-a-kind “trials”, he posits, must be considered independently and also, curiously, in relation to others who have suffered some…thing.

Martin is seeking to brand himself as the patron saint of gays. He may well succeed with his populist mission in the venue of the Catholic church. Know that he will be held accountable for his use of the Gospel as a means to an end.

Here are my replies to his Tweet:

And…

1/Jesus’ encounter w/Zacchaeus (whose name means “pure”; a chief tax-collector) reveals the POWER OF GOD to redeem a man’s life…

2/3-Zacchaeus completely repents: he finds that the Kingdom of God is worth more to him than riches & power. Read the full account: (Luke 19:1-10)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19:1-10&version=NIV

3/3-Jesus’ encounter w/Paul on the Damascus road is another example of the life changing POWER OF GOD affecting those who have power over others

 Added 10-8-2017:

As I have said, the LGBT are self-marginalizing: (Caution vulgar and repulsive language)

As recorded in the four Gospels and also in the Book of Acts, Jesus and his Apostles encounter those in power and those under the influence of power. Jesus and his Apostles redefine power in every instance.  In so doing they proclaim the Lordship of Jesus the Christ and introduce them to the Kingdom of God on earth. More about this in a subsequent post.

And Nothing but the Whole Elephant

 

Jesus said to them, “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before you. If you were from this world, the world would be fond of its own. But the world hates you for this reason: that you’re not from the world. No: I chose you out of the world.” John’s gospel account 15: 18-19

~~~

From the many conversations I have had on Twitter, the word on the street is that “God is love and is all about love. We love, so we are doing what God accepts.” So, where does the world’s hate come in?

The hate spoken of in John’s gospel is generated by a protection of one’s place in the world against “outsiders”. Over and over again I have had that hatred and vitriol directed at me on Twitter. I cannot show you the Tweet replies. They are vulgar and pernicious. The replies come from a place beneath this world.

The hate-filled replies occur when I say something other than what is considered loving by those protecting their place in the world. Replies are derived from a worldview. And, one’s worldview depends on whether you accept being called out of this world knowing that that those in the world will hate you or if you are in this world for its approbation:

Called-Out Ones worldview: “For God so loved the world, that He gave…”

Social Justice Warrior (SJW) worldview: “For the world so loved me, when I…”

In order to make the world-accepted SJW worldview sustainable, mainstream churches create a Jesus who is palatable, marketable, consumable and renewable. The ministers do this by parsing Scripture into love notes. Their resultant Scripture messages, whether in a sermon or in a blog or on Twitter, remind me of a bag Valentine Sweethearts – candy hearts.

These churches promote “inclusion” because in a consumer-driven society, choice of how you live, choice of what you accept and who you accept, choice of right and wrong-choice becomes the ultimate approbation in this world.

~~~

Coming to a church near you: a populist theology which promotes the acceptance of the gay lifestyle, universal health care and illegal immigration all as works of Christian charity from the pulpits of body-of-Christ-divisive politics (race, gender, class, sexuality, etc.). This populist theology uses the high-sounding term “social justice” so as to neutralize detractor’s objections and to force a consensus, a groupthink around the premise of political correctness redefined as God’s love.

I encounter this populist theology every day now. If you are on Twitter “fighting the good fight”, you may receive the same replies from Catholics that I did. They go something like this:

1.       “God is love. I know many committed gay couples who love each other.”

2.      “Jesus never talked about sexuality or homosexuality, therefore it is a non-issue. If Jesus was concerned about homosexuality he would have said something.”

3.      “Jesus is about loving your neighbor. Jesus is not judgmental. Jesus is fully accepting, inclusive. He’s about loving the homosexual. Who are we to judge?” (from Pope Francis’, “Who am I to judge?”).

4.      “Loving your neighbor means universal healthcare. You are not charitable if you are against universal healthcare. You must be a Conservative who hates people.”

5.      “Jesus and Paul are not the same. Jesus is love and Paul is rules. Jesus is universal love. Paul, on the other hand, is a picayune fundamentalist and fundamentalists are authoritarians. Jesus would say “Live, love, eat, pray and let live.”

6.      “Jesus is social justice. He talked about helping the poor. Dorothy Day is a hero. Many of our heroes are beatified saints, saints who did good deeds while alive. Jesus demands good works from us. “Faith without works is dead”.”

7.      “Women are talking in church. Women are being ordained. Scripture is being updated and should be inclusive of homosexuality, as well.”

 

My first thought when I encountered these replies: “The Catholic church has done great harm to its charges by not teaching the whole of Scripture, the whole council of God.” Scripture has been defined down to a constructed abstraction of Jesus’ words.

One of the main reasons the populist theology has taken root in the Catholic and all (yes, all) of the mainline churches, I believe, is the lack of Scripture knowledge coupled with a deficit of personal faith-history. Deism is pervasive in the church: “God and His Word are far away from reality and not relevant to what I am experiencing”; “You don’t understand same-sex attraction. You can’t change me so, accept me for what I am.”

Post-modernist pop-theologians rightly question history and what has been passed down through millennia but without a sufficient regard for and knowledge of the discipline of the study of history – factual non-repeatable events. Their pick-and-choose history approach leads to utter confusion about who Jesus is, what happened the first century and to whether or not Jesus even existed. I have witnessed such dissociative history making on Twitter. Such groping at history and at Scripture reminds me of the Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant: each of the blind men encounter a different part of the elephant (trunk, tail, etc.) and then return home and proceed to project their ‘understanding’ of the elephant as the elephant while claiming the other five blind men must be mistaken. Blind_men_and_elephant2

Populist theology also has historical Leftist ties (“Unconstrained vision” is the term used by Economist Thomas Sowell to define the philosophy of the Left). Political philosopher Jean-Jacque Rousseau wrote, “man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.” Another philosopher, Marquis de Condorcet, believed that men in their natural state with a “natural inclination” would seek out the social good. For them, man’s nature was not the problem. Rather, institutions needed to be reformed so that man’s better nature would come out. Hence, pop-theology presses for reforms: the church must be reformed to help men to realize their better nature. “We are so much smarter now,” is the inference.

Enter the church’s “social justice” moment. And the “social justice” proffered is done under the guise of the common good but it is in reality a narrowing of focus down to subjective individual rights and individual happiness, in parallel with what is happening politically in Europe and the U.S. currently. The “common” part of their “common good” are those who share the same self-directed interests. Others must conform to their self-interests for the common good.

My second thought after reading the above replies: “It is time for another reformation – putting the Bible (again) into people’s hands and teaching them how to read it for themselves.”

It would seem that many of the above respondents view Scripture through the lens of a post-modern Epicurean Catholic world view, a worldview which replaces historical narrative (in this case, derived from the “faith once delivered”) with a relevant “social gospel” or populist theology promulgated as authentic Christianity. And with little knowledge of Scripture many Catholics are ‘falling’ for what they have been taught by the top-down government and media of the Catholic church and its social justice-primed priesthood.

When they do (see replies above) they end up with a Jesus who is fantasy blend of Dorothy Day, Ghandi, Mr. Rogers and a Democrat with a Jesus bleeding heart – an ends-justifies-the-means person. In other words, they end up not with a literal historical Jesus, but rather a figurative Jesus and one disposed to making you and your world feel good about doting on yourself. And, if you can get other people to dish out love and charity and “understanding” and, most importantly, cash, then you have done right by pseudo-Jesus.

Every self-designated Catholic I have encountered on Twitter appears to know little or nothing of Scripture. For them, it seems, raw Scripture, ‘unrefined’ by the Catholic priesthood, seems to be tied to evangelicals who are considered fundamentalists and therefore, presumptively, not connected with their Jesus’ all-assuming love. What they know and repeat is what a priest or Jesuit tells them, and their reply is usually about social justice, a catch-all for not being judged but for being loved.

Without making this post too long, here are some of my quick replies to the above points. Feel welcome to add yours in the comment section below.

1.      The plea bargaining “God is Love” defense is foiled when you define love, not in terms of codependence and sexuality, but as desiring the ultimate good for another. This of course leads to a definition of what is good. I reply with Jesus’s request of the Father, “Set them apart for yourself in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

2.   When someone says that Jesus never talked about homosexuality I remind them that Jesus’s mission was to the lost sheep of Israel, the ones who were supposed to be “a light to the Gentiles”. The Israelites knew the law, the Torah. The law forbids homosexuality. This was common knowledge in the first century. Jesus did not need to repeat it. Paul, on the other hand, an apostle to the Gentiles did need to speak about the matter (e.g., Rome, Ephesus, etc. had temples to pagan gods which involved all manner of sexual immorality.)

3.   Here we have justification by plea bargain. Jesus prays for his own that they will be sanctified, separate – taken “out of the world” worldview.

4.      If you know Scripture then you know that Jesus did not heal everyone in the world during his earthly time. He told us that we can do the same and greater things than he has done when filled with the spirit. Beyond the fact of outright healing, there is the matter of personal healthcare. Universal healthcare replaces a person’s personal responsibility for their health with a non-caring impersonal government bureaucracy. This costly tax-payer bureaucracy will need to control your behavior, your paycheck and the doctor’s practice to control costs. As such, it is loving to not desire socialized coverage.

5.      When I hear someone say that Jesus is Gospel and Paul is not relevant I remind them that Jesus met Paul on the road to Damascus. In the fullness of time Jesus encountered Paul. I remind them that Paul right then and there became an eyewitness of Jesus and therefore an apostle. I remind them that Jesus sent Paul to be Jesus to the Gentiles – the heathen, the pagans, the unclean. I tell them that Paul wrote the theology of the newly established Kingdom of God on earth in his letters to the infant churches.

6.      I remind them that the gospel is “Jesus is Lord”. All else falls in line and in order under this proviso:  salvation, sanctification (called out of the world) and then social gospel (to affect the world under the direction of the Kingdom’s Lord.)

When Jesus tells the rich man “Sell all you have and give it to the poor” we understand the means to the rich man’s salvation: renunciation of his coveting relationship of wealth- a relationship which came between Jesus and the rich man, sanctification (separation from the love of his money and the hold it had on him) and then faith with works – a complete detachment from self-preservation- giving his wealth to the poor, a product of the new Kingdom focus.

7. Women vs. gay acceptance and Scripture: I remind them that there is a difference between culturally defined and morally defined. There is a difference between cultural practice and culturally-imposed taboos and doctrinal principles and God-directed temperantia-God’s ordered structure for the being of man. Paul wrote about the former in his letters to the church at Corinth. Anything perceived as ambiguous was directed back to a person’s Holy-Spirit directed conscious.

 

It is no secret that the Evil One’s mission from the very beginning is to ask, “Did God really say you couldn’t…?”

Pop-theology proposes to modernize and conform the church to be a welcoming inclusive place for whatever the prevailing winds of PC doctrine bring to the church’s door step. Be it known:  the called-out ones – the ecclesia – will remain faithful under the Lordship of Jesus.  The churches that wallow in the world will have their candlestick taken away. In the dark their mutual admiration society will be left grappling with elephant parts.

 

 

Added 10-4-17:

Known in the Things Made

 

“What can be known of God, you see, is plain to them, since God has made it plain to them. Ever since the world was made, his eternal power and deity have been seen and known IN THE THINGS MADE. As a result, they have no excuse: they knew God, but didn’t honor him as God or thank him. Instead, they learned to think in useless ways, and their heart grew dark. They declared themselves to be wise, but in fact became foolish. They swapped the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of the image of mortal humans-and of birds, animals, and reptiles.” -Paul’s letter to the Roman church

“A man who lies to himself is often the first to take offense.” Zosima, the Elder, The Brothers Karamazov, F. Dostoevsky

~~~

Let’s start here:

 

Some observations, after debating pro-homosexuality Catholics on Twitter:

1/Appropriating Scripture to fit within your worldview is perilous. I see this happening all the time in Twitter replies to me: appropriating Christian love to accept homosexuality, to justify national health care and redistribution of wealth, aka, socialism. Of course, LGBT appropriated ‘love’ does not justify them loving a Christian or a Christian way. LGBT love is only one way.

2/Many preachers of Scripture use their own Post-modern and Epicurean worldview to template Scripture and then make life application love potions from that admixture.

3/The post-modern view is one of deconstructionism: nothing, including the Bible, has any authority because such authority has been up till now been viewed only through the eyes of dead white men who must, according to feminist ideology, have been Patriarchal to a fault. Professor’s claiming authority deconstruct meaning from any text offering you nothing or nihilism. In effect, one is told that your present experience is more than enough compared to the millennia of knowledge, wisdom and tradition passed down through the ages to present day.

4/ Following in deconstructionism’s path, language is being changed–emptied of meaning or meaning nullified-to promote homosexuality:  from “marriage” equaling the sacred union of male and female as understood for millennia to “marriage” equaling the secular union of two men or two women under the banner of “equal rights”, thereby equating male/female marriage to homosexual ‘marriage’, equating love for a different but complementary other to self-love narcissism.

5/Homosexuality has been around throughout Scripture’s long and many cultured history. Never once is it condoned and shown as normative in Scripture. Never. God’s rejection of such behavior-sexual immorality-does not change with the calendar, as God’s covenant with men has never changed

6/In Scripture, homosexuality is presented as a form of sexual immorality. Sexual immorality, like all sins, is a form of idolatry-placing a much-revered image between you and God. In spite of this self-serving and toxic myopia, today, many in the church give homosexuality a pass. They prefer to render homosexuality as an adaptation-a coming to terms-of one’s sexuality. Therefore, Scripture must be updated to validate this ‘enlightened’ position as another form of need-love ministry which is then on social media likened to what minorities, immigrants, the poor, the suffering, etc. must feel.

Practicing sexual immorality (idolatry of any kind) automatically keeps one out of the kingdom of God. Scripture is very clear and empathic about this. Yet, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Universalists and a host of new age churches suppose themselves magnanimous with God’s grace. God’s grace is never cheap and affordable. His grace cost him everything to sanctify a people to himself.

As self-styled oppressed and hurting minorities, the LGBT community will tell us over and over that we do not understand them-their needy love nature bent towards the same-sex. They will call us (and me almost daily) “homophobic”, a pseudo-psychological term used to shut down further conversation and to claim that we have the mental problem and not them.

7/Three key New Testament passages concerning homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

8/Romans addresses the aberrant nature of homosexuality and man’s wickedness in the context of first century Epicureanism. With the gods ‘away’ the men with men will play. The Roman church is surrounded by images, cults, idolatry, prostitution, and homosexuality, not unlike our modern-day “diverse” culture. Paul’s letter to Roman church outlines his vision of the church and of the Kingdom of God on earth. Jews and Greeks and Romans are to come to together in the unity of holiness and in their acknowledgement of God’s covenant faithfulness which now means that Jesus is Lord. The unity and diversity revealed in Romans are exactly what the culture is trying to fashion, on its own terms. The Satan is a plagiarist who then perverts what God has written on the human heart.

9/From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture presupposes that heterosexuality is normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3; et al.) and highlights such relationship:  The Wedding feast at Cana, Christ and His Bride. Jesus was not born out of a homosexual relationship. Mary submitted herself to God purposes, not to her own purposes, even though the social-media of her time-gossiping-would have condemned her.

10/ New age thinking, Oprah style, synthesizes all kinds of gnostic elements, elements of good and evil to form a theology they can ‘live with’. I find this thinking in many tweets, where a person tells me that homosexual marriages is as good as male female marriage: it’s “love” that matters, and “Isn’t God love?”

11/The LGBT-ers and their corporate sponsors demand that transgendered ‘women be allowed to use the women’s room. They posit that such person will have mental anguish if not allowed to do so. What they will not posit or acknowledge is that if males who are trying to look like a female enters the women’s room, millions of women would suffer mental anguish. Bottom line: the LGBT-ers demand that the common good be thrown away for the individual’s ‘right’ to pee wherever one feels, to lessen one’s mental anguish. For the LGBT, the needs of the one outweighs any consideration of others.

12/The Obvious:  nature alone reveals that homosexuality is anti-human. No homosexual relationship will produce offspring. The words of procreation– “Be fruitful and multiply”- was stated at the beginning of God’s written communication with us

Of course, homosexual advocates will posit that gay men and gay women can have adopted children, that such configurations, now denoted as “gay families”, are equal to male-female families. This appropriation of male-female families to connote equality with male-male families reveals the loss of meaning to the word “equal.” “Equal” now means: plagiarizing God to obtain a waiver from all accountability.

13/Fourth of July message: a nation which turns its back on Christianity and its coexistence with the neutral State to promote secularism’s “values” and individual rights will lose all its authority as a nation state. Radical secularism will induce governing paralysis. It is happening in Europe and we, in the U.S., are seeing this happen before our eyes.

To be continued…

 

 

 

Added 7-3-2017:

Here’s are interesting column:

Queer divorce in the time of Pride

“What does a lesbian bring to a second date?” my then-girlfriend joked early in our relationship. A U-haul.”…

 

“The complicated human experiences of LGBTQ folks often come at the cost of producing images that heterosexuality will accept. In places like Chicago, most LGBTQ folks are allowed to thrive as long as they follow the same rules as their progressive, straight-identified allies.”

Added 7-4-2017

Resources added 7-8-17:

BORN OR BRED? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic

Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth Paperback – February 1, 1996 by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.

A Christian psychiatrist examines the latest research, refuting the alleged genetic basis for homosexuality and assessing the social power homosexuals have gained.

 

 

 

 

Dragon-Skin or What Not to Where

 

Maybe you can relate. As often happens when I am out and about I come across a homosexual* waiter or cashier. They want to be queer-noticed. They present themselves with false feminine affected speech and limp-wristed affectations. I am immediately repulsed by such an unnatural demeanor as I am by the sight of graffiti-tattoos on the human body.

I do not find such behavior cute, charming or creative. Such behavior is not distinctive of the homo sapien species. It is actually of the animation genre – shallow, fabricated, meant for sale, a sham within a sham.

It doesn’t take much insight to see that homosexuals scream for attention, validation and for positive affirmation. Homosexuals compensate for their neurosis by idolizing their missing symbol-male or female, as the case may be, and by preening to gain the missing symbol’s attention. When I encounter such unnatural behavior, my impulse is to look away when I pay the bill. But, I have wondered about my response.

If I smile and act polite in these situations, is that encouraging them to continue in this behavior when I know such behavior depraves their humanness? If I look and act disgusted, does that incline them decide to harden their ways?

Of course, I am not responsible for their reaction. I am responsible for my Kingdom behavior. So, my Kingdom of God response is to look him or her in the eyes, human to human, and to pray in the spirit for the waiter, the cashier, for the boy or girl under the dragon skin. Under that ‘protective’ veneer of inhumanity is a human.

~~~

“C.S. Lewis put this so poetically in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. There’s a boy named Eustace, and everybody hates him and he hates everybody. He’s selfish, he’s mean, and nobody can get along with him. But he finds himself magically on a boat, the Dawn Treader, taking a great voyage. At one point this boat pulls in to an island, and Eustace wanders off and finds a cave. The cave proves to be filled with diamonds and rubies and gold. He thinks, “I’m rich!” And immediately, because he is who he is, he thinks that now he’ll be able to pay everybody back. Anyone who has laughed at him, stepped on him, slighted him, will now get their comeuppance. Eustace then falls asleep on a pile of treasure—which he doesn’t yet know is the hoard of a dragon. And because he falls asleep with greedy dragonish thoughts in his heart, when he wakes up, he’s become a dragon—big, terrible, and ugly. Soon he realizes there’s no way out. He can’t go on the boat, he’s going to be left on the island alone, he’s going to be horrible all of his life. He falls into despair.

One day the great lion Aslan shows up, leads him to a clear pool of water, and tells him to undress and jump in. And suddenly Eustace realizes that “undress” means “take off the dragon skin.” He begins to gnaw and claw off the scales, and he realizes that he can shed his skin. Working at it, he finally peels off this skin—but to his dismay, he finds that underneath he’s got another dragon skin. He tries a second time and a third time, to no avail; the same thing still happens each time. In the end the lion says, You’re going to have to let me go deeper”

-from Timothy Keller’s “King’s Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus”

 

“Well, he peeled the beastly stuff right off – just as I thought I’d done it myself the other three times, only they hadn’t hurt – and there it was lying on the grass, only ever so much thicker, and darker, and more knobbly-looking than the others had been. And there was I smooth and soft as a peeled switch and smaller than I had been. Then he caught hold of me – I didn’t like that much for I was very tender underneath now that I’d no skin on — and threw me into the water. It smarted like anything but only for a moment. After that it became perfectly delicious and as soon as I started swimming and splashing I found that all the pain had gone from my arm. And then I saw why. I’d turned into a boy again. . . .”

Eustace speaking about what he let Aslan do for him – C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawntreader:

~~~

Consider Jesus word’s in John 16: 8-11 regarding the Spirit and our indwelt mission:

“When he [the Helper] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong on three counts: sin, justice, and judgement. In relation to sin-because they don’t believe in me. In relation to justice-because I am going to my father, and you won’t see me anymore. In relation to judgement-because the ruler of this world is judged.”

 

Any outworking of sin is idolatry. Idolatry replaces belief in Jesus and the Triune God with man-made symbols.

When Jesus, the perfect Israelite who had no sin-the spotless lamb-came, he came not to judge but to give his life as ransom for many. Those of us filled with the Spirit reveal Kingdom of God justice–the ruler of this world is judged. Jesus is Lord. No one has to live under dragon skin. We tell others that the skin comes off, as it did in our case, and that it hurt, but that abundant life is uncovered.

~~~

Consider that Jesus, who, though he worked many healings (restoring sight to the blind, making the lame to walk), talks about amputation as a form of deliverance to be done by the individual now or later by God. Choose your pain.

‘And if your right hand trips you up, cut it off and throw it away. Yes: it’s better for you to have one part of your body destroyed than for your whole body to go into Gehenna.” Matthew 5: 30

I’m sure some people felt bullied by Jesus when he said this. Others wanted the dragon skin to come off.

~~~

Once again, I am reminded of the pernicious nature of homosexuality and pornography. Within the last few weeks I sadly learned of a fellow Christian-an Anglican priest, a friend and former homosexual-who fell back into sin. He confessed to the trustees of his ministry that his fall was because of stress which led to pornography which then led to a homosexual encounter.

This man has ministered, in the U.S. and in Europe, to thousands of people who have desired to leave homosexuality. I have known this man and have worked in parachurch ministry alongside him. My son played with his son. This man left the homosexual lifestyle after twenty-some years, married and had several children. He developed his ministry into a full-time ministry to help others gain freedom from homosexuality. Now, according to his Board of trustees, he is on extended leave. According to a Facebook post, his wife is divorcing him

~~~

-*I do not use the LGBT disposed word ‘gay” for this human dysfunction. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder that is based in neurosis, a splitting off from the proper symbols put in place by God when He created us in His image.

Homosexual neurosis may include separation anxiety issues or abandonment issues. A homosexual response is a learned response towards the path of least resistance and the least amount of pain. Their response is narcissistic in that the individual choses to pamper their wounds instead of address them as wounds. Their responses are stoked in this Epicurean age where Pride Parades reinforce the idolatry of false, mentally engraved images

If you were to look up homosexuality on Wikipedia, you would find that everything is cool, homosexuality is a non-issue.  That revisionism is the work of LGBT lobbies who do not want the DSM to diagnose them as having a psychological problem. In fact, homosexuals will use the psychological sounding term “homophobia” to claim that you have the mental problem and belong in the DSM and they do not.

The insidiousness of homosexuality is now beginning at a very early age. Its promoters want to seduce middle age kids into thinking that they must be gay if they have feelings toward the same gender. You and I know, parents know, that middle school age kids deal with a LOT of feelings on the new social roller coaster they are on. Kids at that age are trying to define themselves and their relationships. Beware! The LGBT is right there to persuade kids that same sex feelings must be gay and must be validated as such. Beware! The schools, which are supposed to teach the three ‘R’s, are teaching your children LGBT ‘values’.

Why would a boy or girl come from school and say “I’m gay” if they were not informed of that word and that such behavior was promoted as an acceptable “variation” of humanness? There is nothing human about homosexuality. No wonder The Satan promotes the narcissistic antithesis of the image of God

 

 

 

Become informed…

Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals she’s gay at church

Britt Jones, a bisexual Mormon who runs a podcast called “I like to look for Rainbows” that featured Savannah’s story, said the leaders should have allowed Savannah to finish.

“Queer issues don’t get talked about in the church enough,” said Jones, who is married to a woman and has children. “It was really brave and really admirable, particularly for somebody that young, that she not only wanted to talk about it herself but be a voice for others suffering in silence.”

All Sex, All the Time

“…children inhabit a highly sexualized world earlier and earlier, and social pressure upon them to exhibit sexualized behavior starts earlier and earlier. A schoolteacher friend recently told me how she had comforted a seven-year-old who was in tears because a girl in his class had insulted him, calling him a virgin. She asked whether he knew what the word meant. “

“No,” replied the little boy. “But I know it’s something horrible.”

Obituary of 15-year-old who committed suicide calls out school bullies

“For a young lady so excited about going to high school, things sure went terribly wrong for her.”

Happy Fourth of July-Dependence Day!

!!Trigger warning – Snark attack!! Proceed with clarity of mind…

Who needs ISIS when Greece, Spain, Portugal, France-the totality of the West-can self-destruct from within just by voting for idiots and appointing people into positions of power who have no business (or moral rectitude or moral courage) for holding the position they are in?

I don’t need to name names but these Prime Suspects are currently seeking to placate a deaf, obstinate and Israel-hating-West-hating Iran; these suspects have dealt a fatal blow to the sacred institution of marriage by ascribing “dignity” to godless and blatant lasciviousness; these suspects have mandated Obamacarelessness! Wow! The U.S. can now be like Europe-morally and financially bankrupt with plenty of time off work! Happy Fourth of July Dependence Day!

Not the House of the Rising Sun but similar in Epicurean proportion!

Not the House of the Rising Sun but similar in Epicurean proportion!

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 - 1859)

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859)

We were warned …

Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1805 – 1859) prescient warning about soft despotism accurately depicts the political will of our three branches of government including the infamous 2015 SCOTUS. And, it certainly applies to all the over-reaching regulatory agencies armed with the tentacles of the politically motivated unelected. Here is de Tocqueville’s warning (emphasis added-across the post):

“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

Democracy in America, Volume II (1840), Book Four, Chapter VI.

“Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?”

“Democracy in America”, “Accidental or Providential Causes Which Contribute to Maintain the Democratic Republic in the United States.”

And this…

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”

Letter to Arthur de Gobineau, 22 October 1843, Tocqueville Reader, p. 229

And this…

“Socialism is a new form of slavery.”

“As for me, I am deeply a democrat; this is why I am in no way a socialist. Democracy and socialism cannot go together. You can’t have it both ways.”

Notes for a Speech on Socialism (1848).

And this…

Even despots accept the excellence of liberty. The simple truth is that they wish to keep it for themselves and promote the idea that no one else is at all worthy of it. Thus, our opinion of liberty does not reveal our differences but the relative value which we place on our fellow man. We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man’s support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country.”

Ancien Regime and the Revolution (fourth edition, 1858), de Tocqueville, tr. Gerald Bevan

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.”

Democracy in America, Chapter XVII.

And this, the piece de resistance…

“The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave.”

Old Regime (1856), p. 204

**

We were warned …

From my post “The West: Moral Courage or Moral Chaos?”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918 – 2008)

Alexander Solzhenitsyn
(1918 – 2008)

Excerpts of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s speech at Harvard, June of 1978, “A World Split Apart”

“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course, there are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life….”

“Should one point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”

“Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counterbalanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.”

“And what shall we say criminality as such? Legal frames, especially in the United States, are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorist’s civil rights. There are many such cases.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually, but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature. The world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems, which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society.

The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media.) But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?”

“How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.”

~~~

LGBT Motto

LGBT Motto

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.” The Apostle Paul’s second letter to his son in the faith, II Timothy 3: 1-3

The Binary That Binds?

I kid you not… 

Gender inclusive ‘school district says drop ‘boys and girls,’call kids’purple penguins’

 In its quest for “welcomeness” the Lincoln, Nebraska school system, under the guidance of individuals with superior ‘intellect’ and with visions of sugar plum equality fairies dancing in their heads have told their teaching staff to not use the appellation “Boy” or “Girl “ when referring to boys and girls. Instead “purple penguin” is to be considered an appropriate designation for your son or daughter. They kid you not.

 This humanistic-nihilistic-equality worshiping social engineering didn’t start here, in Lincoln Nebraska. It began years ago in the hearts and minds of those who abandoned natural law and the God who structured it.

 These wizards conjured philosophies, via God-abhorring human-craft, that were to magically create a more perfect world via perfected institutions, institutions that would lift mankind (Now, penguin-kind) from its savagery to its wunderkind apotheosis.

 Consider the words from the 1700s of French Enlightenment thinker Marie Jean Antoine Nicholas Caritat, marquis de Cordocet written in his “Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind.” Per Condorcet, “a real equality” demands that “even the natural differences between men will be mitigated by social policy.”

 The Condorcet webpage reminds us that what humanists seek is nothing short of god-like omniscience and sovereignty:

 “Our hopes for the future condition of the human race can be subsumed under three important heads:

The abolition of inequality between nations,

The progress of equality within each nation,

The true perfection of mankind.”

 

I do not think for a minute that what Condorcet wrote long ago implied that our identities should be wiped clean and that “purple penguin” be written on our name tag. But, once the pathogen of humanism is left to mutate within isolated ivory tower minds we end up with the dementia found in Lincoln, Nebraska.

 The Lincoln, Nebraska school system has taken humanist thinking and extrapolated it to the extreme. The Lincoln, Nebraska school system is playing god with the lives of our little ones and they are doing so to facilitate “gender inclusiveness”-titillating words that send chills down the legs of people with frozen brains.

 Of course, the gods of political correctness (the coercive inclusive-for-few-ejective-of-all-others LGBT mob) must be satisfied. Anything and everything that is natural-the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God-including marriage and, now, your child’s human identity is to be sacrificed by Hegelian Progressives on the altar of identity politics. Child sacrifice has returned. Yin and yang are bad. Synthesis and Kumbaya are good little penguins.

 From the ‘gender inclusive’ Lincoln, Nebraska school system’s dehumanization of children we are to understand that binary is bad: 0 and 1, 1 and 0 are out.

 Binary gender does not reflect, we are told by effete ‘educators,’ the true nature of an all important aspect of education: ‘gender fluidity.’

 ‘Gender fluidity,’ is now to be considered a necessary Common Core-ish foundation for a good public education. And, like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, these school administrators have no use for the U.S. Constitution. It is too natural law abiding, too structured, too not with it!

 But wait! Even more important than the dismantling of young minds and rebuilding them with the sands of ‘gender fluidity’ is that life will become ever more ‘perfect’ for that loveable LGBT crowd.

 The imposition of “Gender Identity Fluidity’ teaching, a narcissistic precondition for a teeny tiny minority, is now going to open the flood gates of raw sewage that will pour right into our child’s classroom.

 Calling children “purple penguins” negates the binary and we are left with nil. Welcome to Disneyland humanism and hell on earth.

 

 

 Wisdom is known by her children, a tree by its fruit.

 

 

BTW: here is the Lincoln, Nebraska handout in PDF format:

 

12 easy steps on the way to gender inclusivenessGender-inclusive-training-handouts

 

Read it and weep.

 

Extrapolation Endnote:  The Lincoln, Nebraska school system now must require the purple penguins to call the teacher Buttercream Buffoon instead of Mr./Mrs./Ms Johnson!!

Seen-this-before Endnote:  If someone points their finger into a shape of a pistol then the purple penguin will be called “Boy.”

Double-Closeted And Doubled Down?

Study: Same-sex abuse rate high

Chicago Tribune, Sunday, September 21, 2014 article by Ted Gregory

From the page seven article:

“Same-sex couples may experience more domestic violence than opposite-sex couples, a Northwestern Medicine review of research suggests.

Richard Carroll, an associate professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine and Feinberg Ph.D. student Colleen Stiles-Shields made their conclusion after reviewing a handful of studies, including the 2011 National Violence Against Women Survey of about 16,000 people.

That survey found domestic violence rates among same-sex couples upward of twice as high as those of opposite-sex couples, Carroll said Thursday….as least as high and in many cases higher than for opposite-sex couples, …

“Their explanation for the higher rates, Carroll said, is that same sex couples “are dealing with the additional stress of being a sexual minority.”

That added stress also leads to lower rates of reporting domestic violence among same-sex couples, Carroll said.”(emphasis mine)

Note: I am unable to link to the Tribune article since I am not a member of the Chicago Tribune online circulation. I do have the newsprint in front of me. The article in its original form can be found at Northwestern University website:

Domestic Violence Likely More Frequent for Same-Sex Couples

Extra stress in same-sex couples may raise risk of domestic abuse

September 18, 2014

“Evidence suggests that the minority stress model may explain these high prevalence rates,” said senior author Richard Carroll, associate professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a psychologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. “Domestic violence is exacerbated because same-sex couples are dealing with the additional stress of being a sexual minority. This leads to reluctance to address domestic violence issues.” (emphasis mine)(reluctance =Double Closeted in their thinking)

The review was published Sept. 4 in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. The first author is Colleen Stiles-Shields, a student in the clinical psychology Ph.D. program at Feinberg.

Domestic violence — sometimes called intimate partner violence — is physical, sexual or psychological harm occurring between current or former intimate partners. Research concerning the issue began in the 1970s in response to the women’s movement, but traditionally studies focused on women abused by men in opposite-sex relationships.

“There has been a lot of research on domestic violence but it hasn’t looked as carefully at the subgroup of same-sex couples,” Carroll said. “Another obstacle is getting the appropriate samples because of the stigma that has been attached to sexual orientation. In the past, individuals were reluctant to talk about it.”

Of the research that has examined same-sex domestic violence, most has concentrated on lesbians rather than gay men and bisexuals.”

 

Minority stress model?!? Wow! And this from a psychiatrist, from a ‘professional?!’

NFL. No doubt you have witnessed the recent uproar over the Ray Rice video. Domestic abuse, caught on tape, is front and center. Should Ray Rice be given the option of choosing the NFL “stress model” as his psychological reasoning for acting violently towards his mate?

Remember the Penn State child-sex abuse scandal and Jerry Sandusky? Should the pressures of creating football success, football success which must translate into school donations coupled with a historical background of abuse be placed under a similar but somewhat different model: the unctuous demand for success dollars that creates stress and leads to abuse under situations conducive to abuse? With Sandusky there was more to the story than just the stress surrounding his job performance but I would certainly figure that being his team’s defensive coordinator was a stressor. Does the football “stress model” also apply to him?

Domestic abuse in any form is a deplorable act, needing immediate attention. And, there is no doubt that NFL players placing themselves under a contract and the spotlights, have put themselves under tremendous pressure to perform. Should a player’s stress factor be used to explain violent behavior and for some, excuse the behavior as understandable?

Of course the “minority stress model” extends well beyond same sex-sex couples. It would also apply to the sexual minority groups of polygamists, pedophiles and sexual predators the likes of John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer.  Every minority would fall under the umbrella diagnosis regardless of the violence inflicted on their victims.  One has to wonder when the “minority stress model” diagnosis will be used in court as a defense.

Minority stress model?!?

Now to my point: Is a “stress model” where the domestic abuse discussion should end? Are there not moral implications which are at work here? And, do people put themselves in positions and remain in positions where stress is a given? Are people culpable for their actions?

Regarding the above research by Carroll and the PhD student, where is the diagnostic factor that each person, regardless of stress, is responsible for their own actions, whether in a heterosexual marriage or in a same-sex marriage?

Certainly Carroll and Stiles-Shields, psychological diagnosticians, do not make a moral assessment as to why same-sex couples would encounter “Minority-stress.” Instead, they basically enable same-sex couples via a politically correct way to accept themselves-a “Get Out of Shame Free” card, if you will: “You are a sexual minority and therefore you encounter more stress than couples in heterosexual marriages would. You are victims of your status, nothing more. It is the world’s responsibility to make life better for you, a same-sex couple. “You are not ultimately responsible for your violent reactions under stress. You are only reacting out of minority stress.”

Is the opposite scenario true? Would there be less stress on same-sex couples if only the rest of the world accepted their “minority” behavior? And, what makes them a minority? It is their sexual and emotional codependency on a person of the same sex.

Isn’t it the implication of Carroll and Stiles-Shields that there would there be less stress and domestic violence in same-sex marriages if everyone around them jumped up and down and said “Yes, gay is good for everyone? ”Carroll specifically used the words “Minority stress model”- a politically correct way of sifting victims out of thin air.

Becoming a victim is now vogue, a cause célèbre. Victimization will almost ensure that people will take notice of and senimentalize your ‘dilemma’, thereby feeding any narcissitic tendencies.

Yet, what is written onto everyone’s heart is truth, not unjust and obtuse psychological mumbo-jumbo.

From an absolute moral perspective a Christian knows that a person’s ‘heart’, his or her psyche, is not a tabula rasa but rather a tablet inscribed with a moral knowledge-a BIOS operating system embedded by God.

“For the anger of God is unveiled from heaven against all the ungodliness and injustice performed by people who use injustice to suppress the truth. What can be known about God, you see, is plain to them, since God has made it plain to them. There are, of course, things about God which you can’t see: namely his eternal power and deity. But, ever since the world was created, they have been known and seen in the things that he has made. As a result, they have no excuse: they knew God, but didn’t honor him as God or thank him. Instead, they learned to think in useless ways, and their unwise hearts grew dark. They declared themselves to be wise, but in fact they became foolish. They swapped the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of the image of mortal humans-and birds, animals and reptiles.

So God gave them up to uncleanness in the desires of their hearts, with the result that they dishonored their bodies among themselves. They swapped God’s truth for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever, Amen.

So God gave them up to shameful desire. Even women, you see, swapped natural sexual practice for unnatural; and the men, too, abandoned natural sexual relations with women, and were inflamed with their lust for one another. Men performed shameless acts with men, and received in themselves the appropriate repayment for their mistaken ways.

Moreover, just as they did not see fit to hold on to knowledge of God, God gave them up to an unfit mind, so that they would behave inappropriately. They were filled with all kinds of injustice, wickedness, greed, and evil; they were full of envy, murder, enmity, deceit, and cunning. They became gossips, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, self-important, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, unwise, unfaithful in marriage, unfeeling, uncaring. They know that God has rightly decreed that people who do things like that deserve death. But not only do they do them; they gave their approval to people who practice them. (emphasis mine)

The Apostle Paul’s words in his letter to the Roman church is a true psychological diagnosis of the human psyche. With God there is no politically correct word spinning or blame shifting, no pandering of victimization. Each of us is responsible for our own actions whether we are in a majority, minority or in a minority within a minority. God doesn’t offer secular humanism. He offers a safe harbor and redemption.

The good news is that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…” so that mankind could courageously confront and acknowledge each our own sinfulness, repent and find our God-renewed right minds.

Paul’s letter to the Roman church goes on to tell you the good news worked out in our lives. I suggest that you buy a copy of New Testament scholar N.T. Wright’s translation of the New Testament: “The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation” Read about the good news and the healing process for yourself. It works when applied!

One final observation: the “Minority stress model” sounds analogous to the global warming models, models that are designed to be overly sensitive to CO2 in order to make certain political and economic justifications… and to make everyone a victim.

A ‘Naturalized’ Woman

Transgender. The word sounds surreal, mysterious and out-of-the-comfort-zone scary. Transylvania, transubstantiation and transmogrification have similar unsettling effects on the hearer.

In a less frightening usage, “trans”, the Latin prefix “across”, evokes thoughts of crossing a border or a change from one type to another. Consider the words “translate”, “transition”, “transportation”, “transposition” and “transformer.”

The chemical usage of “trans” in describing food may also promote consumer acceptance or rejection based on whether or not a product contains “Trans Fat.”

In personal use I do not use the word “transgender” to describe myself. I find it reproachful and slighting, in fact, due to its connection to the LGBT community and the connotations that this community has engendered for the word.

I realize that there are many in the LGBT community who use the word “Trans” to describe themselves:  “I am happy to be a Trannie.” But this was never true for me.

To begin with I am not associated with the LGBT community whatsoever. There are reasons why I am not involved in the LGBT community and I have written about those reasons elsewhere in previous posts. But to mention it briefly my choice not to be involved in that community has to do with the fact that I am a Christian. Because I follow Jesus Christ I do not encourage or promote homosexual or bisexual behavior of any kind. Beyond this I certainly do not base my life or center my life around sexuality as do the members of the LGBT community.

In conversations with others I have often found that if a person says that someone is living a “lifestyle” they are in fact seeking to buttonhole that person into a predefined category. And certainly there are some people who want to be buttonholed.  You have probably seen the tee-shirt that says “Out and Proud”. But someone using the word “lifestyle” to define who I am and what I am about would be demeaning to me.

Often, the tag “lifestyle” will be used in a pejorative sense:  “Why are you living this lifestyle?”  The speaker presumes that he or she has a legitimate life and that in my case I, by cross purposes, have a faux or superfluous life, a life opposed to the “normal” conventions.  I find their point to be pointedly dismissive. Thankfully, though,  I am not thin-skinned. I don’t let their verbal barbs scratch the surface. And you can’t let others control the narrative of your life by giving them the chalk to draw a box on the ground for you to live in. Especially when you need to make the change that I and others have made, changes that were never as frivolous as a “lifestyle”.

I began living as woman several years ago. Since then I have written only a few posts regarding the topic of my change. To be honest, the whole “change” business bores me to death.  And yet there are times when I feel the need to dredge up the words and ‘splain myself to others. I do this because I have learned over the course of many years that people usually fear, dislike and even hate what they don’t understand.  So here goes.

Though not born with female body parts, I became woman through a naturalization process. I call the process “a naturalization process” because it is similar to becoming a naturalized US citizen: a person not born in this country can become a ‘naturalized’ citizen by acceptance of its Constitution, its language, its laws and so forth. You get the picture.

The naturalized citizen acquires all of the benefits and responsibilities of their new country. Likewise, as a naturalized woman I have acclimated to my new country: I go to work, I go to church, I go… as woman. If asked (and thankfully I never am), I would say that I am a “naturalized” woman as opposed to saying that I am “trans-gendered.”  In doing so I take the conversation out of the gutter to a whole new level.

As a person who was gender “stateless” before my naturalization process I felt I needed to find a place where I could live in one place without segregating the mind from the body. And having always believed in a God-given binary gender – male and female – I knew that I had to be one or the other. And though the out workings of so-called masculinity and femininity are  relative only to the opposite gender I could never see myself as an effeminate man or as a butch female. I had to be female and not a bastardized version of one or the other.

The genesis of my gender understanding and the psychological disconnect with my body was most likely genetic and pre-natal hormonal influences on my brain along with a good portion of mystery. It is not exactly clear as to why I desperately needed to make the change. But of course, along the way I have met those who see things “clearly”, who believe that you do not need to make the change. In their words, “”just bear your cross (gender).”

 Over the years I have been involved in para-church ministries where the gender dysphoria issue is lumped in with the main issue of homosexuality. These church ministries talk about “trans-genderism”  or gender confusion because of its guilt-by-association with homosexuality: the gender dysphoric participants practice homosexuality and they are looking for a way to stop.  

Now, every follower of Christ accepts that homosexuality is expressly forbidden by the Lord.  But gender dysphoria, on the other hand, is not talked about by the Lord and is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture (no matter how much hermeneutics parse or stretch the Scripture to fit a certain “Bible-ized” social ideology).

The leaders of these ministries will tell you that gender dysphoria comes from a broken place in the person. They will use the word “broken” (along with various psychological terminology ) in their spiritual diagnosis so as to make their underlying assertions: such a change would be morally wrong, a sin; it’s not “normal” because God doesn’t work like that; it doesn’t fit God’s redemptive purposes. But I disagree.

Over the years I have also had Christian psychologists tell me that if I wanted to become a woman that they could not help me with the change. And yet the very same Christian “professionals” told me that I should see a psychiatrist in their clinic to get a mind and mood altering drug prescription to help avoid depression. They were very willing to change the state of my mind but not the state of the rest of me.  Why? One remedy is seen as “Biblical, the other remedy is deemed not “Biblical.”   One can see where the true disconnect is and how much the subjective, inaccurate and unverifiable field of psychology influences Christian thinking! (I find it ironic to say the least that Christians will whole heartedly accept the unproven theories and conjectures of psychology to guide their lives in tandem with Scripture but they will not accept the  theory of evolution, a theory which has overwhelming evidence to support its claims.)

Now I would have to guess that Christian psychologists seek to alter your behavior via mind altering drugs and remedial counseling in order to be in keeping with Scripture’s own prescription:  “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” Translated this means that you change your way of thinking to be in line with what most people think and not your body, at least not in the mysterious gender dysphoria realm where the trollism of homosexuality may be lurking. “If you are obese or anorexic or addicted to mind altering drugs (see above) or whatever else then we will help you change your body.”

 At one point in his ministry Jesus spoke this practical polemic:  “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.”  This is a direct and terse statement of transition from one physical state to another and clearly doesn’t come across as a metaphorical mind purging laxative. In this case His path to wholeness was to cut off that which causes you to sin (that which doesn’t make you whole or holy) and not deal with it anymore. He didn’t seek to medicate or to counsel the issue to some undefined conclusion.

J.B. Phillips once wrote a book called “Your God Is Too Small.”  I agree with the basic premise of the book that people’s conception of God is most readily based on a projection of their relationship with their parents, with male and female figures authority figures and so on. For Christian counselors, ministers, et al I would amend the title based on my experience with their counseling: “Your God is Too Much Like Sanitized Societal Norms.”

Those in the ministry who do not have gender dysphoria (and that would be most) think that it is something that can be dealt with or overridden with therapy, prayer and redemptive (bear the cross I am handing you) suffering. They will place a diagnostic label on you and curtly denounce you for living a “lifestyle.” This stereotyping happens over and over again in these ministries. 

A theologian at this point may say that such a change is working at cross purposes with God, that  the ‘naturalized’ person is not getting their understanding from Scripture (though the New Testament writers desire that people be trans-formed and put on Christ). The theologian may also say that they have ‘bastardized’ what God has created. A Christian psychologist may go further and say that they suffer a neurosis.  Others may say things like “God doesn’t make mistakes (implying that they know the mind of God because they have reason on their side.)” I have heard it all.

Now you should know that my gender understanding and change are both coupled with my understanding of God’s grace – God’s elbow room for sinners like me. But, at this point, let me make something clear: I don’t practice homosexuality. I am celibate. I have been given the grace to make the change and to be celibate. This has been a wonderful healing/direction for my life.

Grace and elbow room. Do divorced people receive God’s grace? If you listen to Christian talk radio the answer is yes.

Divorce, not a feature of Adam and Eve’s garden relationship came about because of the hardness of men’s hearts since the garden. Today we have Christian radio personalities who are divorced. Did God, who sanctifies marriage, allow divorce – the One becoming Two? Does God’s grace allow you to divorce your husband because he looked at pornography? Does grace (both God’s and yours) allow and enable you to stay with your sinner of a husband as a salient witness for Christ in the marriage? What’s the appropriate use and measure of grace? Is grace the wherewithal to transition from a broken state into a temple for the Holy Spirit? Is grace the transmogrification of a person’s point of view? (see Flannery O’Connor’s short story, A Temple of the Holy Ghost. )? Is it all of the above? I think so.

God hates divorce but he allows it to take place. His grace works with man’s brokenness. Should I be judged or weighed differently than a divorced person? But let’s not think about the subject of my change in relativistic terms. I don’t. I think about my change in terms of grace, in terms of unction, in terms of personhood, set apart not for sin and the world but for God.

There was no doubt that I was divided or split about my gender since my earliest remembrance. To resolve the matter I spoke to all manner of counselors. And, as mentioned above, psychologists will often use the word “neurotic” to describe someone who is ‘severely’ divided in their thinking. But I have since learned not to accept the unproven ‘science’ of psychology and its “naming” conventions as truth. And since I am not Woody Allen-esque enough to need regurgitation of emo and hypochondria three times a week or even once a week I stay away from counseling. Counseling, for me, has been nothing more than the ebb and flow of mindless goo.

Beyond all this, there will always be people who want to nail down the morality of my change as something bad. Some will seek to nail me down to their own cross but I’m not going there. I have my own cross to bear.

Wholeness, I have understood and accepted, could be achieved through a “naturalization” process where mind and body could coexist in a stable peaceful state – the beginning of the thousand-year reign of Christ in my life. I can live within God’s grace and with God’s blessing. And, I can now concentrate on God’s Kingdom.

It was Abraham Lincoln who said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And, it was James, the brother of my Lord, who said, “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” And, it was Carol King who sang, “You make me feel like a natural woman.”

Jesus said, “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”

It was me who said, “Amen.”

Pretense, Part 2: The World Has Become a Jerry Springer Show

The following short article was written six years ago.  Read it and take a look around today. What do you see?

Theodore Dalrymple
Law Isn’t Enough

City Journal, Autumn 2005

Recently in London a correspondent of a left-liberal Dutch newspaper interviewed me, a decent, civilized sort—one of us, in short. I am sure that he brought up his children to say please and thank you, probably in several languages.

He asked me why I had chosen recently to move from England to France. I said that I thought France was a decade or two behind Britain in cultural decline. It had maintained certain standards a little better than Britain—though, I added, I could see that it was heading in the same direction.

He asked me what evidence I had for my claim. Well, I replied, crime in France was approaching British levels; in some places, it was even worse, at least for serious crimes of violence.

Another straw in the wind was the rising number of tattooed and pierced young people on view, as well as tattoo and piercing parlors. Ten years ago, you hardly ever saw a tattooed person in France: now they are everywhere. The small and ancient town, solidly bourgeois, near where I live has such a parlor, purveying savage kitsch to young fools. Le Monde published a little while back a profile of the acclaimed French writer Ann Scott, whose work makes Baudelaire’s seem a bit like that of Ella Wheeler Wilcox. Scott has a large and prominent tattoo of a swallow on her neck. Critics claim that her latest book, describing heroin addiction and lesbian love, has a terrible beauty, as well as near-emetic properties.

The correspondent asked me: what was wrong with tattooing, if that was how people wanted to adorn themselves?

I asked him whether he would have himself tattooed—whether he would be happy if his teenaged children had themselves tattooed—and if not, why not? After all, if he would not like it, he must have some inner objection to tattooing.

True, he said, but tattooing was not illegal. And since even I, who deprecated it, did not think that it should be illegal, there was nothing further to say about it. If tattooing was legal, it was thus of no social, moral, or cultural significance.

I tried to point out some of the cultural meanings of the vogue for tattooing. First, it was aesthetically worse than worthless. Tattoos were always kitsch, implying not only the absence of taste but the presence of dishonest emotion.

Second, the vogue represented a desperate (and rather sad) attempt on a mass scale to achieve individuality and character by means of mere adornment, which implied both intellectual vacuity and unhealthy self-absorption.

And third, it represented mass downward cultural and social aspiration, since everyone understood that tattooing had a traditional association with low social class and, above all, with aggression and criminality. It was, in effect, a visible symbol of the greatest, though totally ersatz, virtue of our time: an inclusive unwillingness to make judgments of morality or value.

But the correspondent’s premise that the legality of an act was the sole criterion by which one could or should judge it chilled me. It is a sinister premise. It makes the legislature the complete arbiter of manners and morals, and thus accords to the state quasi-totalitarian powers without the state’s ever having claimed them. The state alone decides what we have or lack permission to do: we have to make no moral decisions for ourselves, for what we have legal permission to do is also, by definition, morally acceptable.

Even worse than the correspondent’s implicitly totalitarian assumption was his lack of awareness of how societies cohere, and how social existence becomes tolerable, let alone pleasant. After all, the law does not prohibit rudeness, boorishness, and an infinity of unpleasant habits. But it is clear that if, for example, the prevalence of boorishness increases, life in society becomes more filled with friction and danger.

What I found so odd about the correspondent were his perfect manners and refined tastes. But so little confidence did he have in the value of the things that he valued that he seemed indifferent to the mechanism of their disappearance or destruction. This is the way a civilization ends: not with a bang but a whimper.

 (Emphasis mine)

 From this article:

 http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_diarist.html

 THEODORE DALRYMPLE: Anthony (A.M.) Daniels (born 11 October 1949), who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is a British writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist