Spurgeon and McAtee Contra Keller On Sodomy

“I know of no surer way of a people’s perishing than by being led by one who does not speak out straight, and honestly denounce evil. If the minister halts between two opinions, do you wonder that the congregation is undecided? If the preacher trims and twists to please all parties, can you expect his people to be honest? If I wink at your inconsistencies will you not soon be hardened in them?

Like priest, like people. A cowardly preacher suits hardened sinners. Those who are afraid to rebuke sin, or to probe the conscience, will have much to answer for. May God save you from being led into the ditch by a blind guide.

And yet is not a mingle-mangle of Christ and Belial the common religion of the day? Is not worldly piety, or pious worldliness, the current religion of England? They live among godly people, and God chastens them, and they therefore fear him, but not enough to give their hearts to him. They seek out a trimming teacher who is not too precise and plain-spoken, and they settle down comfortably to a mongrel faith, half truth, half error, and a mongrel worship half dead form, and half orthodoxy.

God have mercy upon men, and bring them out from the world; for he will not have a compound of world and grace. “Come ye out from among them,” saith he, “be ye separate: touch not the unclean thing.” “If God be God, serve him: if Baal be God, serve him.” There can be no alliance between the two. Jehovah and Baal can never be friends. “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” “No man can serve two masters.” All attempts at compromise or comprehensiveness in matters of truth and purity are founded on falsehood, and falsehood is all that can come of them. May God save us from such hateful doublemindedness.

Charles Spurgeon

This original exchange between Eisenbach and Keller is about 3 years old now. And for three years this exchange has been festering under my skin like an embedded thorn trying to work its way out. You can find the exchange on youtube here,

I take this on because Keller has become the darling of so many “Reformed” people today and yet I’m convinced that the man’s theology is deeply deeply flawed and that he really should be assigned a “Priscilla and Aquila” to tutor him before he is allowed to teach. Of course that won’t happen.

Here are a couple other places where some fine analysis of Keller’s incipient Marxism takes place,



If Keller is Confessional and Biblical Reformed then I’m groupie of D. G. Hart.

Professor EISENBACH begins the dialogue with Keller,

…I wrote a book about the gay rights movement because I was appalled by the oppression and the discrimination against homosexuals in my America [KELLER: uhhmm..]. And this questioner asks, ‘What do so many of the churches have against homosexuals? And what about your church’s approach to homosexuality, is it a sin? Are they going to Hell?

Now this question could have been easily answered by responding to the last two questions above with,

“Yes and Yes.”

A Christian minister might have thrown in a couple references from Scripture to support his affirmatives,

I Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Galatians 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

It also would have been interesting for Keller to ask Eisenbach for some examples of the appalling treatment of Sodomites that Eisenbach references. After Eisenbach answered that Keller could have cited examples of the appalling treatment of Christians and then made a point that in a sin ravaged world appalling treatment is a equal opportunity employer. Personally, I refuse to allow the GLBT crowd play the victim card.

But Keller decides to nuance the question disarming the intensity of the question by using humor thus giving himself some breathing space and time to think,

KELLER: uhhh…let’s talk about my church first which will be a little easier than trying to answer for all the other churches of the world….but I’ll try [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]. I’m representing all the churches of the world alright, you know? [EISENBACH: but Christianity I mean….you, you…] Yeah, I know but let’s start with mine.

I actually applaud Keller here. Humor can be a great way to take the sting out of a question and clearly Keller was being set up here by Eisenbach. There is nothing wrong with using humor as a opportunity to re-frame the question. However, I’m not satisfied with Keller’s re-framing.

Eisenbach returns to the question and Keller responds,

EISENBACH:…. You go to the Bible quite often and there are many evangelicals who would say it is listed as a sin in the Bible [KELLER: sin in the Bible, right.]…and these people are going to Hell.

KELLER: Right. Now…What you..first…ughhhh…Let’s talk about my church again [nervous laughter]. Let’s go back here. What we would say is…I think it’s unavoidable. (1) I think most Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox Christians over the years have said, you read the Bible and the Bible has reservations. (2) The Bible says homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality. (3) Ok? There we are…you have it. (4) The Bible also says, ‘Love your neighbor’. The Bible…in fact, The Good Samaritan parable which is how Jesus tells us to love our neighbor…you put a Jew and a Samaritan there. So, what Jesus is trying to say is everybody is your neighbor. (5) Gay people are your neighbors. Uhhh…people who are of other faiths are your neighbors. People of other….. other…uhhhh….uhhh…races are your neighbors. (6) And it’s the job of a Christian to do what Jesus did on the cross which was to give himself for people who were opposing Him and people who were diff….believe….didn’t believe in Him even. (7) And so, a Christian is supposed to say, ‘I serve the needs and interests of all of my neighbors in the city, whether gay or straight, whether Hindu or Muslim.(8) I mean Hindus, for example, don’t believe in the Trinity. (8a) It’s a different view than what the Bible says. (9) Gay people have a different view of sexuality than generally what you see in the NT. I’m supposed to love my neighbors. (10) So, what I don’t see is…at this point, I see some churches that are…basically, ignoring the places in the Bible that talk about homosexuality in order to love their gay neighbor. (11) And I see other Christian churches taking very seriously what the Bible says about homosexuality but in a very self-righteous way. So, they actually do single out gay people. I mean, there are a number of conservative churches that will love their Hindu neighbors and will love their Muslim neighbors, and not their gay neighbors. And I really don’t think there is any excuse for that. So…that’s what [EISENBACH: Is…is] (12) I mean, I…I….Therefore, I have to take some responsibility for being a member of the Christian Church for the oppression of homosexuals.

Bret responds,

(1.) The Bible has RESERVATIONS about sodomy? Reservations? To have reservations is to have doubts or misgivings. The Bible does not have reservations about sodomy. The Scriptures everywhere inveigh against it as sin. Shall we say that the Scriptures have reservations about wife swapping? Do the Scriptures have reservations about blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Do the Scriptures offer reservations regarding idolatry?

For Pete’s sake … reservations?

(2.) The Bible says homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality?

Note, here, as above, the word “sin” is avoided. The bible has reservations. The Bible says homosexuality is not God’s original design. What circumlocution will we get next? The Bible frowns slightly on men sleeping with men?

Note in I Corinthians 5 when St. Paul was given a question about sin he didn’t tap dance around the issue with circumlocutions.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 [a]You have become [b]arrogant and [c]have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and [d]I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord [e]Jesus.

If Keller had to deal with the situation St. Paul speaks of he would have written something like,

“I have some reservations about this man having his Father’s wife and want you to know that such untowardness is not God’s original design. I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already commended all of you for not being judgmental. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to make known my reservations about this behavior not being according to God’s original design. ”

(3.) “Ok … there we are … you have it.”

Bang … right between the eyes.

How bold.

How forthright.

Never a man spoke with more clarity regarding sin.

(4.) “Love your Neighbor.”

And that means what concretely?

Is Keller implying that loving your neighbor means telling them that God has reservations about Sodomy? Is Keller implying that denouncing sodomy as sin is not loving? What is Keller implying when he reminds us of the necessity to Love our neighbor? Some Christians might think that loving your Sodomite neighbor is to bake cookies for them without giving them law and Gospel.

(5.) Yes, I know who my neighbor is and I know that I am supposed to love them. The most loving thing I can do to my neighbor who is of another faith or who struggles with immorality is to give them law and Gospel. Oh sure, I bake cookies for them, and invite them over to the house but if all that happens without telling them of God’s command for all men everywhere to repent, I’m not being loving to my neighbor.

(6.) Jesus died to give his life as a ransom for many. It is not my job to die to ransom a people.

And when the Christian tells the truth about sodomy, greed, lust, or any sin, at that very moment the Christian is giving himself for those who oppose both myself and my Elder Brother, the Lord Christ. Love is not a word that I get to fill with my own content. Love is defined as acting consistent with God’s law towards others. Love to God and to others is to treat them consistent with God’s propositional revelation.

(7.) The Christian first serves the interest of God before he serves the interest of all those types of people that Keller lists. Indeed, I can’t know how to serve the interests of all those people that Keller lists unless I first serve God’s interests.

Secondly, does Keller understand that how the Christian understands the interests of the non-Christian is monumentally different then how the non-Christian understands their own interests. As such, I could be serving the interests of the non Christian while the non-Christian at the same time is howling at me and gnashing his teeth at me because he does not believe I am serving his interests.

For example, I am serving the interests of the Muslim when I oppose allowing a Mosque to be built. Does the Muslim believe I am serving his interests when I do all I can to oppose Mosque building? For example, I am serving the interests of the GLBT crowd when I oppose their curriculum being taught in the Government schools. Does the GLBT crowd see that as serving their needs or interests?

Keller’s answers are glib and not well thought through.

(8.) (8a) (9.) Hindus have a different view of the Trinity than the Bible? Gay people have a different view of sexuality than generally what you see in the NT

A different view?

Than generally what you see in the NT?

Does this guy ever eat meat?

Why do we limit God’s teaching on the subject to the NT?

(10.) At least Keller here admits that some Churches are ignoring the sin (he doesn’t use that word) of homosexuality in order to love their gay neighbor. But the problem is, is that if the Churches in questions are not confronting the issue of homosexuality as sin then, contra Keller, those Churches are not loving the Sodomite. It is not love to ignore the issue Tim.

(11.) (12.) The question starts with the issue of Homosexuality and in these sentences we see Keller’s harshest words for Christians. The way he speaks here turns the sodomite into a poor poor victim of nasty Christian meanness.

Can Christians be mean? Absolutely. Can Christians be self righteous? All the time. But calling out Homosexuality as sin is not mean and not always self righteous. And the fact that Christians might be inconsistent in calling out Homosexuality and not other sins is not unfair to homosexuals. What is unfair is that they are not calling out other sins as sin. If there are 8 cars going 95 miles an hour and I get pulled for going 95 mph it is not unfair that I get a ticket for speeding all because the other cars got away with it. Just so, if there are a host of different sins being engaged upon and only one of them gets hammered as sin, that does not make it unfair to the sin that was rightly called out all because the others weren’t called out.

And lets keep in mind also at this point that the GLBT crowd are the ones who are organizing in order to mainstream their sin into our society and culture. It is they who are the ones who are forever keeping this subject alive so that Christians have no choice but to respond to it. The love that once dare not speak its name now won’t shut up. What else can Christians do except to respond to it. If liars or kleptomaniacs or the greedy were to officially organize as liars, kleptomaniacs and the greedy in order to advance the cause of liars, kleptomaniacs and the greedy the Church would have to speak just as regularly against those organizations. So, away with all this nonsense that somehow the Church has a fixation on the issue of sodomy. If the sodomites would quit screaming their ruddy lungs out in order to advance their agenda the Church wouldn’t have to whisper back about “reservations, and that sodomy is not according to God’s original design.

EISENBACH: Are committing homosexual acts sin….against God?

KELLER: uhhhh….What do you mean by ‘sin’? The answer is ‘yes’.

Bret responds,

Well, at least he said, “yes,” even if he had to ask what was meant by sin.


KELLER: Now see. Here’s the problem with that. You don’t go to Hell for being a homosexual…..

This is so facile it is beyond belief. Keller here begins to introduce a false dichotomy.

Of course a person goes to Hell ultimately because they have not trusted Christ alone. But when a person doesn’t trust Christ alone the consequence is that they remain in their sin and so not having their sins covered they are thrown into hell by God because of their assorted sins.

EISENBACH: …..but committing homosexual acts will get you to go to Hell?

KELLER: Noooo. Wait a minute. Wait, wait [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER].

Why is the audience laughing? They are laughing because they know that despite of Keller’s tap-dancing he is on the horns of a dilemma. And Keller knowing what the audience knows raises his protest “Noooo. Wait a minute. Wait, wait.”

EISENBACH: well, you know. Some people say, ‘Well, it’s not the homosexuality or being gay. It’s being/doing gay stuff that’s the problem’.

KELLER: No, no.

Despite, Keller’s seeming dismissal of Eisenbach offering, I do think it is possible for one to have the besetting temptation to homosexuality and yet have no sin because they resist temptation and don’t do gay stuff.

KELLER: First of all, heterosexuality does not get you to heaven. I happen to know this [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER/CLAPPING]. So, how in the world could homosexuality send you to Hell? And actually…uhhh…The Bible…Listen…..This is…this is true. Jesus talks about greed 10x more than he talks about adultery, for example. Now, one of the problems Christians have here is partly…let’s be nice to Christians. You know when you’re committing adultery. I mean you don’t say, ‘Ohhh, you’re not my wife’ [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]. I mean you know when you are committing adultery. But, almost nobody knows when they’re greedy. Nobody admits…thinks they’re greedy. You know cause everybody is comparing yourself to other people and so, it’s a frog in the kettle kind of thing. Ahhh….however, the fact of the matter is…the Bible is much harder on greed/materialism. It’s a horrible sin, terrible sin. Will greed send you to Hell? No! What sends you to Hell is self-righteousness – thinking that you can be your own savior and lord. What sends you to heaven is getting a connection with Christ because you realize you’re a sinner and you need intervention from outside. That’s why it is very misleading actually to say, even to say, ‘Homosexuality is a sin’ because most people…Yes, of course homosexuality is a sin because greed is a sin, because all kinds of things are sins. But what most Christians mean when they say that and certainly what non-Christians think they hear when they hear that is ‘If you’re gay, you are going to Hell for being gay’. It’s just not true. Absolutely not true.

Bret responds,

When Keller does his little humor bit about heterosexuality and homosexuality it might be easy to conclude that sexuality makes no difference whatsoever in terms of heaven and hell.

Keller then goes on to talk about greed thus seemingly suggesting that Christians who oppose homosexuality are being hypocritical because they don’t oppose greed adamantly enough.

Next, we have to note Keller continuing in his false dichotomies. It is true that self righteousness is that which sends you to hell but Homosexuals and all those (greedy, materialists, adulterers) who are embracing their sins are by definition those who are seeking to establish their own righteousness and so are by definition “self-righteous.” So Homosexuality does send one to hell because the Homosexual is by definition “self-righteous (i.e. — one who has rejected Christ’s righteousness for his own).

Keller seems to want to communicate to sodomites that sodomy doesn’t preclude the possibility of God’s grace and forgiveness but if that is what he is trying to say he could have been far far clearer.

Note that Keller says it is misleading to say that homosexuality is sin even though he immediately contradicts himself by saying … ‘yes of course homosexuality is sin.” Which is it Tim?

And how does the below come close to making any sense,

“of course homosexuality is a sin because greed is a sin, because all kinds of things are sins.” (?)

Of course what it seems Keller is trying to do here is to suggest that all sins are equal therefore it is wrong to focus on homosexuality.

And yes Tim … if the homosexual doesn’t repent they will go to hell for their homosexuality which was part of their attempt to establish their own righteousness.

EISENBACH: So then, what’s….then how is homosexuality a ‘sin’. I’m not….

KELLER: ….Well, homo…[sigh]..Greed is a sin. In other words, it doesn’t help human flourishing. Basically, Christianity has an account of what we think human beings were built to do and what will therefore, help human flourishing. So, we would say if you spend all of your money on yourself, that’s bad….not only for your own soul, but for everybody elses. We would say homosexuality is not the original design for sexuality. Therefore, it’s not good for human flourishing. We want people to do things that are good for human flourishing. But that’s not what sends you to heaven or Hell. Now, there…maybe we ought to talk about that [NERVOUS LAUGHTER]. What sends you to heaven or Hell really has to do with your faith in the Gospel which is that you can’t….uhhh…be your own savior through your performance and your good works. Now here, I’m coming at this like a protestant now. You know…ummm…everybody’s gotta be a particular kind of Christian and there’s differences of opinion within Christianity about this. But uhhhh…no. being gay doesn’t send you to hell and sin doesn’t send you to Hell like that. The sin underneath the sin is, ‘I am my own savior and my lord’. And that’s the reason why pharisaism, moralism, Bible-believing people who are proud and think God is going to take people to heaven because they’re good…that’s sending them to Hell. I mean, I know that this is a lot to take in at once.

Bret responds,

Homosexuality is seen as sin according to Keller because it doesn’t help human flourishing. Tim doesn’t mention that homosexuality is sin first and foremost because it is rebellion against God and His law word. Certainly it is true that homosexuality doesn’t help human flourishing, but homosexuality is a sin because it is rebellion against God before it is a sin because it doesn’t help human flourishing. When we treat sin only as a horizontal problem we lose the majesty of God and His authoritative Word.

Keller then seems to imply that his Protestantism is just one of the Baskin-Robbins flavors of Christianity among which one can legitimately choose from. Hints of postmodernism is all over this answer from beginning to end.

And Keller, in a question that has to do with whether or not Homosexuality is a sin, saves his harshest words for false Christians. Now, I quite agree that false Christians are not going to heaven but for Pete’s sake this question was about Homosexuality.

EISENBACH: It’s a lot.

KELLER: I’m…well…yeah…I mean….[EISENBACH: I want to go back to……]but inside our church…[EISENBACH: right.] There’s just not going to be this disdain of homosexuals [EISENBACH: right.] There just can’t be…not when I’m teaching the gospel like that.


No Christian congregation should have disdain for any individual who is looking for answers to their sins. However, there should be great and heaping disdain for any individual who looks to mainstream their sin and demands that Christians speak in even softer terms regarding homosexuality then even Keller does.

The Need To Be Sensitive To Transgenderism?



These two links should be read back to back. The first one doesn’t pretend to be Christian and offers,

Event director Giuliana Berry ’14 told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday that the workshop was brought to campus to teach students not to automatically judge people who may have engaged in these sorts of activities, but rather to respond with “understanding” and “compassion.”

“People do engage in some of these activities that we believe only for example perverts engage in,” she said. “What the goal is is to increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that are not what you would personally consider normal.”

The second link is written by an ordained Christian minister with whom I am an acquaintance. He writes,

“Here in the absence of words to defend myself, without examples, without models, I began to believe voices in my head – that I was a freak, that I am broken, that there is something wrong with me, that I will never be lovable.”

Hearing those words from anyone ought to give us pause.

The deep-seated pain and hours of tormented anxiety that lead one to devalue one’s own life and to consider oneself unlovable ought to cause our heart to break. It ought to move us to do what we can to protect the vulnerability of one who has felt ostracized from society.

Put these words into the mouth of a transgender individual, however, and all too often our response is less Christ-like.

But what if we were to put these words into the mouth of a pederast or of a necrophiliac or of someone who likes bedding farm animals? Should we then be moved to do what we can to protect the vulnerability of the pederast, necrophiliac or beastie who has felt ostracized from society or should we thank God that they are ostracized from society? Certainly our hearts should break but should they not break because of the affects of sin on image bearers and not because somehow those who God considers perverts are ostracized from civilized society? Sure, we must have compassion on Transgender people but compassion comes in the form of pleading with them to repent of their sin and not in normalizing their sin.

And all of this is said with a full understanding of a condition called Klinefelter syndrome, where the phenotypically male patients have an extra X chromosome, making them XXY, and they are known to exhibit strange behavior. This chromosomal aberration related to gender has serious complications, and it is no surprise that those who insist in wanting the other gender as their own sexual identity will have their own mental and emotional problems too.

Still, having acknowledged that some of these medical abnormalities arise this is hardly reason to want to normalize for society what is clearly aberrant non Klinefelter behavior. Our Christ-like response has to not only consider the feelings of Transgenders but also the mind of God who has made His mind known regarding male and female roles.

My pastoral acquaintance writes,

Many Christians are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with transgender. When the city of Gainesville, Fla., proposed and later passed an ordinance in 2008 guaranteeing freedom from discrimination for transgender individuals, the response of the Christian community was to run a sensationalized media campaign about the dangers of lecherous men using the women’s restroom.

“What if, instead of responding out of our fear or anxiety, we learned to listen to the heart of those who make us uncomfortable?”

Why would one assume that being concerned for the safety of other people was a response driven by fear and anxiety and not one driven by love and compassion for people who are not Transgender? Consider that though gay and transgender youth represent just 5 percent to 7 percent of the nation’s overall youth population, they compose 13 percent to 15 percent of those currently in the juvenile justice system. Apparently there are reasons for the community at large to be concerned about mainstreaming transgendered people.

Secondly, I hope my acquaintance will see that in responding to his article I am listening to the heart of one who makes me uncomfortable. I’m sure I make him uncomfortable in this response. Will he listen to my heart?

My acquaintance writes,

When we refuse to give space for those who struggle with gender identity, when we draw clearly demarcated lines of male and female and demand that everyone fit within those boxes, when we try to ignore the very real questions of so many young people, we force people like Lana to live in invisibility, in a world where death can seem preferable to life, where being loved by another is an unattainable ideal.

Bret responds,

Understand that the Lana in question was born a man and is now transgendered. She is in a relationship with another man. The Church used to call that sin. Now we are being asked to “give space,” and to not “draw clearly demarcated lines of male and female and demand that everyone fit within those boxes.” How is it love or loving to allow someone created in the image of God to go on attacking the image of God place upon him by not pleading with compassion that such a person repent?

What of the lack of compassion towards other little boys and girls in society who will grow up seeing Transgenderism in our culture as normal and as one option that they may now choose from? How is it loving to those little boys and girls to allow them to think that there is something healthy and normal about Transgenderism? Are we not at that point causing the little ones to stumble?

And finally, if Transgenderism is mainstreamed is it not I and other Biblical Christians who will be now forced to live lives of invisibility as our convictions about the abnormality of Transgenderism is squelched so that we dare not come out of the closet? As what heretofore was considered sexual perversion comes out of the closet and is mainstreamed what was once mainstreamed (Biblical Christianity) is that which is now the oddity and must be shoved into the closet.

My acquaintance writes,

What does it look like for the church to have a theology of gender that leaves room for those who struggle with gender expectations? What does it look like for the church to have a doctrine of humanity that incorporates not only “standard” XX and XY chromosomal men and women but also those whom we regularly deem anomalies? What does it look like for the church to be a place that welcomes the discussion over gender identity? Are our churches a place where a man or a woman can share their struggles to fit in to cultural expectations of gender norms? What would it look like for the church to stand up to the gender stereotypes in marketing and advertising that help to perpetuate gender roles and cause inner turmoil for those who don’t somehow fit in?

I suspect that if we’re going to get there, we first need to learn to listen. We need to hear what Lana and others like her are saying.

Bret responds,

My acquaintance asks all questions in the blockquote immediately above. I wish he had answered his own questions so that we would know what he thinks the answers to those questions are, thus giving us a better idea of both his Theology and anthropology.

Question #1 – Certainly the Church should allow sinners to continue to learn to put off the old man and put on the new man. The early Church had these kinds of people in their churches.

I Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

However, clearly note that St. Paul notes that this is what they once were but now that they are in Christ they are no longer that. Former Transgenders may be in the Church and may still struggle with the besetting sin of Transgenderism and the Church may have need to be patient with that and loving through that, but the expectation is that the old man of Transgenderism will be put off and the new man of heterosexuality will be put on.

Question #2 — Here we come up against the doctrine of anthropology and by extension human sexuality. The premise of my acquaintance’s question seems to be the Church is responsible to incorporate what our Fathers called “perversion.” Also, except for the medical oddity that will arise in a very low percentage of cases, God made all people either as XX or XY. It is a very postmodern mindset that thinks that we can create categories that are other then male or female. I see nowhere in the Scripture where such a postmodern move is considered normative. Clearly in the Corinthians 6 passage above the Holy Spirit’s expectation is that Transgenders in order to be incorporated into the Church must repent of their Transgenderism and be washed, justified and sanctified in the Lord Christ.

Question #3 — What kind of discussion does my acquaintance want to have about gender identity. Does he want a discussion where the conclusion could be that God was wrong about these matters and the Church must give up their centuries long objection to such behavior, or does he want a discussion where the Church welcomes those confused about gender identity and holds out the Gospel of Jesus Christ which can deliver them from their alienation from God, self, and others as expressed in Transgenderism?

Question #4 — I would hope our churches are safe places where repenting sinners can share their struggles with their besetting sins. The Church is a hospital where recovering sinners can look for the tonic of grace to help them in their recovery.

Question #5 — It would help to know just exactly what gender roles my acquaintance is protesting against in our marketing and advertising. Is he protesting women being displayed as sex objects? If so, who couldn’t agree with such a protest? Or is he protesting men and women being displayed as men and women? It is hard to address this question until one knows the exact gender misrepresenting that is going on in advertising and marketing.

Still, all in all it sounds as if my acquaintance has been caught up in the postmodern gender bending craze that insists that gender is merely a social construct. If that is the case then I can only offer that it is my conviction that the whole idea of nearly everything being a social construct is itself a social construct.

In closing, I can’t believe it has come to the point where an apologetic has to be provided for this kind of thing inside the Church.

Connecting the Dots Between Malthus, Sanger, R2K, and Agenda 21

“All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…. Therefore … we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”

Thomas Malthus
An Essay on the Principle of Population

1.) Keep in mind that R2K teaches that it would be morally wrong for a Minister to speak against this kind of agenda from the Pulpit because a Malthusian worldview is a matter for the common realm and not the Church realm.

2.) If you go to youtube and look for “Agenda 21” you will see that this kind of ideology is being pursued by the United Nations in terms of their official policy. They have written position papers that echo this Malthusian approach.

3.) Clearly the whole Planned Parenthood enterprise, beginning with Margaret Sanger, and right up until today has more than a whiff of this Malthusian worldview. It is a not much discussed fact that Sanger began her campaign with the goal of keeping Blacks and Jews from breeding successfully.

In the April 1933 issue of the Birth Control Review, Sanger said that “[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds … a deadweight of human waste … [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to the race. … Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Sanger advocated a program that would;

“… hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

When liberal clergy support Abortion they are supporting the same racial population control that Margaret Sanger supported.

4.) Of course this is part of the anti-Christ worldview where evil is called good, and good is called evil. For Malthus, charity and philanthropy would be to help reduce the surplus population of the earth by doing the good works of insuring that people die. The solution for the “problem” of too high of birth rates would be to abort the babies and sterilize (and maybe even kill) the Mothers.

Wherein The Pro-Death Crowd Takes The Mask Off


Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

1.) Don’t you just love Cultural Marxists? You bang and bang on them to try to get them to see that all life is not equal, in the sense that all life is the same, (boys are different than girls, ballerinas are different then Weight-lifters, Japanese are different then Nigerians) and then when they bring themselves to admit that all life is not equal they say “all life is not equal” in the sense that all life isn’t worthy of life, and then they apply the idea of life that is not worthy of life to those who are judicially innocent.

2.) In point of fact, the person who admits that “All life is not equal,” in the sense of “All judicially innocent life is not worthy of life,” is indeed someone who can legitimately submit, with high hopes for acceptance, their resume to the “death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm trooper” society.

3.) Yes … Yes, I acknowledge that Storm Troopers can be inconsistent. One day they are being consistent with their maxim that “All judicially innocent life is not worthy of life,” and the next day they are playing “cootchie cootchie coo” with their neighbors newborn they are babysitting. Thank God many Storm Troopers are characterized by felicitous inconsistency.

4.) Notice how the “entity” mentioned (the entity that is a judicially innocent life that is not worthy of life) is referred to with the abstract term “entity” and not the concrete term “life.”

5.) According to our Storm Trooper journalist, the rights of the more powerful (“The Boss”) trump the rights of the less powerful. Friedrich Nietzsche you have a phone message from Ms. Ubermensch.

6.) By the way … I’m sure Stalin viewed the Christian Ukrainians as “non autonomous entities,” and I’d bet that Hitler viewed the Gypsies and the Jews as “non autonomous entities.” When you’re “the boss” autonomy becomes a very convenient matter to define.

Obama … Lincoln Redux

Years ago, H. L. Mencken exposed the fact that Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, used poetry as opposed to logic to reinvent these united States of America into a National Union from a Confederated Union. Lincoln, by the poetry as expressed in the Gettysburg hijacked these united States vision of itself and largely reinvented the country with that speech. As stated earlier, H.L. Mencken pointed this out in his own illimitable way,

“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

The reason I bring this up is I believe that Barack Obama was trying to do much the same thing in his 2013 Inauguration speech.

First, Obama has always tried to channel Lincoln. In point of fact Obama used Lincoln’s Bible (along with MLK’s) to take his oath of office. Could this be a indicator that Obama understands what Lincoln accomplished in changing America via his Gettysburg Address, and so aspired to do the same with his Inaugural address?

Second in his Inauguration Obama made more then one reference to the ability of America to reinvent itself. Early on in the Inaugural address Obama said,

“America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: …. an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.”

Even earlier in his address Obama even refers how the Nation re-made itself in the context of the Lincoln Regime,

“Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”

Elsewhere we find,

“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we;”

When you combine these quotes it is clear that Obama’s intent is to remake America and my premise is that this Inauguration Address was to Obama what the Gettysberg was to Lincoln in the sense that both speeches, by way of poetry, glommed on to some honored American idea, only to twist it by poetry in a direction that contradicted the original intent of the Founders. For Lincoln, his appeal was to the the American time honored notion of self-determination in order to justify denying the South the opportunity of self-determination. Lincoln, by poetry, was able to justify his crushing of the South in the name of self-determination. Lincoln’s poetry, coloring his brutal use of the sword and the canon, remade the Nation and set it on a different trajectory from which it would never recover.

What Obama is appealing to, by way of poetry, is a twisted idea of equality in order to overturn liberty. In his Inaugural speech Obama returned to the theme of equality over and over again.

… ” what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

“We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.”

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher …”

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well….”

Obama’s constant appeal to the traditional American virtue of equality is being used to set the nation on a new trajectory that will overturn the original understanding of equality. It is obvious that the Founders did not believe in the kind of Jacobin equality for which Obama champions. Just the fact that the Founders allowed the individual states to determine who would have the franchise proves that they were not interested in the kind of Marxist equality for which Obama is advocating. The fact that the Founders crafted a document of negative rights where the Federal Government was restricted to very specific enumerated and delegated powers — powers that did not include forcing equality on the population and did allow the people to maintain their cherished liberty — suggest that the Founders “equality” is not the “equality” to which Obama constantly returned.

In Obama’s America, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence that mentions that “all men are created equal, is being used as a talisman in order to reinterpret America. The problem is that the US War for American Independence was not posited on the same premises of the French Revolution where equality as Egalitarianism was the leitmotif. America did not have the watch word of “Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity.” America did not mention “Equality” in her primary document (Constitution), or her Bill of Rights. America was not hung up about addressing everyone as “Citoyen,” (Citizen) in order to reveal a mad allegiance to equality as we find in the French Revolution was. America did not come up with a “Declaration of the Rights of Men,” and enshrine “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights” in its first point. America’s concern was Liberty not equality.

In the twentieth century, scholars like Hayek and Friedman maintain that equality is in conflict with and incompatible with liberty. They maintained that speaking of social justice in a society where individuals are free, any attempt to establish social justice or equality will deprive the people of their freedom because such an attempt requires government intervention to the end of denying liberty in pursuit of equality. A true notion of liberty understands that it includes the liberty to be different, and so unequal, due to the pursuit of individual interests. Obama’s version of “Equality” stands in contradiction to any vision of “Liberty” that isn’t Jacobin at its core. Obama’s equality is a demand for equality of outcome that always achieves a dull, ugly, drab sameness and the only way that can be achieved is by Obama taking away the liberty of American People.

Obama, in his Inauguration Speech is trying to deceptively change America much like Lincoln did at Gettysburg. If Obama is able to foist his vision of equality on America, by sentimentally appealing to the historic American notion of equality, he will succeed in changing the USA into the USSA.