Category: Uncategorized

“From the point of view of the Marquis de Sade there is nothing but nature, and whatever nature commands is right. The very fact that I have a desire is a sign that it exists in nature, and the fact that it exists means that nature wills it, and if nature wills it, it would be wrong — i.e., a sin — not to act on a desire which nature has implanted in us.”

E. Michael Jones 
Monsters from the Id — pg. 27

____________________

“Women… are nothing but machines designed for voluptuousness.”

Marquis de Sade
Justine

One desperately would have liked to ask de Sade, “Designed by whom (?).”

_____________

“Mme. Roland, the Girondist leader who eventually lost her head to the revolution described scenes in which ‘women were brutally violated before being torn to pieces by those tigers; intestines cut out and worn as turbans; bleeding human flesh devoured.'”

Jacques Barruel 
History of Jacobinism — pg. xii

_________________________

“If the object of classical politics was the tranquility of order, a kind of stasis, then revolutionary politics chose motion as its goal. Passion, which according to classical tradition, disrupted order was now seen as the engine of progress. Movement, for a revolutionary, was its own justification. What the revolutionaries failed to see was the direction movement was taking. Passion seemed to be a function of the will, but as the initial euphoria of the revolution was replaced by the Terror, it became obvious that passion followed no law but its own and that the trajectory that began with passion and ended in horror was pre-programmed from the beginning, no matter how the intentions of the revolutionaries protested to the contrary…. The French intelligentsia had embarked on the trajectory of emancipating the sexual impulse from the moral order some time before and were now entering the end phase of that trajectory as the revolution, itself a manifestation of the trajectory , engendered the Terror and an orgy of sadistic violence and murder.”

E. Michael Jones 
Monsters from the Id — pg. 37

______________________

“… the early phase of the Enlightenment (held) that releasing sexual passions from the confines of the moral order can be managed and its bad effects rendered harmless by technology (penicillin, the condom, etc.) or legislation (no fault divorce, sexual harassment statutes, etc.) What begins as sex emancipated from the moral order ends in murder and death.”

E. Michael Jones 
Monsters from the Id — pg. 38

____________________

“Msgr. Knox has written that when men get the upper hand in Utopian communities polygamy is the rule; but when women get the upper hand, the rule is celibacy. Once convention is eschewed in favor of revolutionary authenticity in sexual matters this sexual antagonism begins to assert itself.”

E. Michael Jones 
Monsters from the Id — pg. 41

_______________________

“Horror and Enlightenment are two sides of the same coin. Like Mary Shelley we too are the captive to two contradictory imperatives: We as a culture can’t disavow the Enlightenment, especially its commitment to sexual liberation, and at the same time, we can’t deny that people get hurt when they act on these imperatives….

The two monsters of the Enlightenment, now immortalized on cereal boxes, also portray two phases of the Enlightenment as it actually got implemented, as opposed to what it proposed. Frankenstein epitomizes Phase I of the Enlightenment project — the early, ostensibly altruistic, optimistic phase, when the revolution, no matter how horrific its execution, still seemed plausible as a way of bettering mankind. This is the electricity phase, the phase of youthful energy, captured in Wordsworth’s phrase, ‘Bliss was it that dawn to be alive. / But to be young was very heaven!’ Dracula symbolizes phase II of the Enlightenment — the syphilitic phase, the disillusionment phase, when blood has been not only shed but polluted, generally by venereal disease as the logical consequence of sexual liberation. By the time the Enlightenment arrives in Germany during the Weimar Republic, revolution is seen as a draining of the blood of the innocent, and the revolutionary leader is seen as the scientific Vampire, as Dr. Caligari and Nosferatu and the doctor in Dreyer’s Vampyr were viewed at the time….

Vampirism and disease are ultimately metaphors for lust, which is a perversion of sexuality into something not life giving but life draining. The trajectory of the Enlightenment then has Frankenstein as its terminus a quo and Dracula as its terminus ad quem.”

E. Michael Jones 
Monsters from the Id — pg. 62, 63

____________________

“The crucial step taken by La Mettrie and the Marquis de Sade was the transformation of man into a machine as prelude to manipulating him as the scientist would manipulate inanimate nature. Because Christianity posited a certain sacredness to life, it was also seen as the major obstacle to the fulfillment of forbidden desire. Christianity, as a result, was construed as the enemy by Shelley and his circle. Science was an essential weapon in the arsenal he used to attack Christianity, the family, marriage, property, and government…. ‘Oh!’ wrote the aspiring young chemist,

‘I burn with impatience for the moment of Xtianity’s dissolution, it has injured me; I swear on the altar of perjured love to revenge myself on the hated cause of the effect which even now I can scarcely help deploring.! — Indeed I think it is to the benefit of society to destroy an opinion which can annihilate the dearest of its ties … — Let us hope that the wound which we inflict tho’ the dagger be concealed, will rankle in the heart of our adversary….

The more Shelley became convinced that he was in possession of the secrets of nature, the more violent became his hatred of ‘unnatural’ conventions like the family, the state, and religion, in particular Christianity: ‘Yet here I swear, and as I break my oath may Infinity Eternity blast me, here I swear that I will never forgive Christianity! …  Oh I wish I were the anti-Christ, that it were mine to crush the Demon, to hurl him to his native Hell to never rise again.'”

E. Michael Jones 
Monsters from the Id — pg.  69, 71

I.) Opening Prayer — Mr. Mark Chambers

Father we thank you that we’ve been invited to participate in this joyous occasion, the uniting of Andy and Bernice in Holy Matrimony. We’ve come to witness the ceremony, to celebrate with them, and to ask for your blessings on them. We pray that you would strengthen them for all that lies ahead, especially in this day and age when the forces of darkness are being brought to bear on your church. We ask that their love for and commitment to each other would grow as it remains grounded in their mutual love and commitment to you. That you would own their hearts and minds all their days and ensure their fidelity to you and your holy purpose. That within the confines of the roles of marriage that You have laid out in your holy word they would place the needs of the other above their own. And finally that you would bless them with an abundance of Godly seed, that the church might be filled with Christian warriors who from their youth are dedicated to godly dominion and conquering this apostate nation for our Lord and King Jesus Christ.

II.) Marriage Homily

When God said that Husbands were to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and when our Sovereign God went on to command that wives are to submit to their husbands at that point God confirmed a law order for Marriage that had already been in place for a millennium among God’s people. What this means is that Marriage is not based on schmaltzy notions of sentimentalism and Harlequin Romance. Nor is marriage anchored in effervescent and mercurial feelings. Marriage is structured and ordered by a law structure ordained by God wherein husband’s are to serve their wives by leading them as that service is consistent with God’s law and wherein wives are to submit to their husbands wherein that submission required is consistent with God’s law.

Note that neither the Husbands service, nor the wife’s submission are absolutized. Both must exist and move in terms of God’s overall law order. Husbands have no authority to be either Tyrants or Wimps and wives have no authority to be either Shrews or Doormats. If Husbands operate outside of God’s law order in relation to his wife, his wife is duty bound to oppose him. The same goes in the other direction.

For centuries the short hand label for this biblical marriage social order has been “patriarchy,” which means literally “rule of the Father.” That Scripture everywhere supports patriarchy is seen from Genesis to Revelation. God who rules over all is described as Father and entrusts covenantal  representations with fathers and husbands.

Now Patriarchy has fallen on some hard times, what with the advent of feminism and egalitarianism. Indeed the Church in the West, in many quarters, is all in a tizzy to find some other paradigm that is more “fair” and is more “wise” than what God has provided. The consequence of this search to replace the God of the Bible’s authority for structuring marriage with a different god’s authority for structuring marriage has resulted in the wreckage of the family in the West with the residual flotsam and jetsam of broken marriages,  single parent families, and confused children.

The cure for all this breakage is found in a return to biblical  patriarchy. In Patriarchy we find that the Christian faith gives us structure that is characterized by Love, Hierarchy, and Suitability

I.) Patriarchy is defined by love (Ephesians 5)

Interestingly it is Christ’s sacrificial love for His Church that is used as the model here for husbands. Here the Lord Christ is said to have gave Himself up for the Church.

Of course this is a shorthand reference to Christ’s death on the Cross for the sins of His people. Just as the Lord Christ served the Church in solving the Church’s sin problem by His death, so Husbands are to so love their wives that they sacrificially surrender themselves for their wives.

We should find it fascinating that the inspired Apostle would invoke the death of Christ for the Church as a model for a husband’s love and service for  and unto His wife. The crucifixion is the integrative point for all of Scripture. This love of God in Christ, taking upon Himself, on the Cross, the wrath of the Father, as deserved by the Church, becomes the model for patriarchy.  In His Cross work for the Church Christ did not consider His own needs but the needs of his Bride. In the Cross Christ provided for His bride the approval with God that she did not have. In the Cross Christ received the hostility of God that would have otherwise have fallen upon His bride. In the Cross Christ answered all the demands of God’s law that His bride could not meet. In the Cross Christ brought His bride underneath the safety of His wings and provided shelter from the storm of a loving God who provided Christ to be the Church’s husband. Christ did for His bride everything that His bride could not do. The Lord Christ loved His Church and gave Himself for it.

This selflessness, this obedience unto death, this compassion to do for others what they cannot to for themselves is the model set forth for Biblical patriarchy.  And yet, we are still told that patriarchy is arcane, oppressive, and so must be shelved in favor of other marriage models that are reflections of the bizarre and unseemly.

II.) Patriarchy is defined by Hierarchy (Ephesians 5)

The hierarchy is found in the explicitly stated requirement that, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.”

If modern man was not offended by what was already said he certainly has his knickers in a twist over this statement. Quit contrary to modernity’s lust for a Jacobin egalitarianism where everyone is equally the same thus assuring that each and all of us descend to a lowest common denominator sameness what  patriarchy teaches is that all of life, marriage included, has hierarchy. This hierarchy is not absolute but is governed by God’s law word. Husbands are to be the authority covering over the wife even as Christ is the authority covering over the Church.

That men have hierarchy authority over their wives and families is not based on the fact that men are innately superior to their wives. Such a view would be a sign of some kind of mental distemper. That men have authority over their wives is only based on the fact that men are better at being men then women are at being men and part of what it means to be a man is to serve one’s wife and family by exercising authority. This God ordained authority is wielded by the husband with a selflessness that is looking out for the best for wife and family.  It is to that authority that wives are to submit just as the Lord Christ submitted to the authority of the Father during the incarnation.

Notice the implied “harmony of interests” motif here. In patriarchy there is the presupposition of a harmony of interest. The husband and wife think not only of their own needs but of the needs of one another. As a minister for over 25 years now I can tell you that when marriages break down they most often break down when the “harmony of interests” is exchanged for a “conflict of interest” model where husband and / or wife begin to think the marriage is about themselves as opposed to being about the glory of God and the extension of the Kingdom of Christ.

III.) Patriarchy is defined by Suitability (Genesis 2)

This is what God said in Genesis
The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now, it stands to reason that this woman who was to be suitable for Adam found an Adam that in turn was suitable for her. This is just to say that Adam and Eve were a fit. They were quite literally made for each other. First of course they were a fit in the sense that they understood that they were God’s creatures and were beholden to Him. In our language today we might say that they shared a common faith. No marriage should be entered into where man and wife do not share a common understanding of their shared Christian faith. Indeed Scripture forbids it for Christians when it forbids unequal yoking.
But the correspondence, — or suitability if you prefer — between our first parents of course only began with Adam and Eve’s common faith — a common faith that found each of them trusting in God at each turn.

But beyond this common faith were other commonalities. They were related and yoked in other ways. After all this was a woman who was, in Adam’s own words, “Bone of my Bone, and Flesh of my Flesh.” Adam and Eve mirrored one another. I suspect that Adam and Eve corresponded to each other in the way that they looked and in their mannerisms, in their likes and dislikes. They not only shared a faith and a bed but they shared common delights, common palates, common speech patterns, and common characteristics.
Rudyard Kipling caught something of what I am getting at in terms of the need for commonalities in uniquely Christian marriage that is never less than a common faith but is always more than a common faith when he wrote,

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face,  the eyes, the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

If this is true of a stranger within the gate how much more true of a stranger within a marriage?

Dr. Clarence Macartney, a well known conservative Reformed Minister from my Grandparent’s generation put this time-tested concept, if also time-worn idea, in a sermon he preached on Marriage and family life. Macartney preached,

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

I know that Andy and Bernice share the kind of commonalities that the Lordship of Christ anticipates for a uniquely Christian marriage. They are not strangers to one another in terms of suitability. They share a common understanding of their common faith. They share a worldview.

They each are

Christian
Reformed
Covenantal
Confessional
Theonomic
Reconstructionist
Presuppositionalists
Familial-centric

They come from similar family cultures and backgrounds and they share a common people group. They are suitable for each other.

May God and His Christ favor us with a return again of Biblical patriarchy in order to heal the brokenness in our families and our people. The West will only be rebuilt, one marriage at a time, as those marriages turn to Christ and embrace God’s family order of patriarchy.

Text — John 17:9-26
Subject — The Lord Christ
Theme — The Lord Christ’s Long Prayer
Proposition —  Consideration of the Lord Christ and His requests in His long prayer will reveal to us the heart of Christ for His people.

Purpose — Therefore having considered the Lord Christ and the requests of His long prayer let us  take comfort and rejoice in the great salvation by which we have been saved.

Action — Therefore having considered the requests

Introduction —

Upper Room Discourse
Preparing His legates for their task
As we shall see His departure and looming  ascension is upon His mind I13)
Longest recorded prayer we have of Christ
Unspeakably shame, dishonor, and cruelty lies before Him and yet the Lord Christ’s time is spent asking for His company.

Great Johannine themes here — “Word,” “World,” “Truth,” “Joy,”

Background / Context

“World” — used 13 times in this text.

The word “world” here is used of mankind as it lies in Adam … as it is in opposition to the Lord Christ.

Herman Sasse rightly spoke of the word “world” here as

“the sum of divine creation which has been shattered by the fall, which stands under the judgment of God, and in which Jesus Christ appears as the Redeemer… The “world then is in some is in some sense personified as the great opponent of the Redeemer in Salvation History.”

World then does not have to do with locale or geographic setting but rather it has to do with opposition to God’s saving work. The “world” is a realm that is activated and motivated by the intent to cast God off and to arise to god’s place. Christ will speak, in John, of the evil one as “the prince of this world.” (12:31, 14:30, 16:11). This does not mean that Satan is over planet earth but only that Satan is the one who rules over that aspect of fallen creation that opposes God.

When Christ says, “My Kingdom is not of this world,” He is NOT saying that His Kingdom does not impinge upon planet earth or the affairs of men outside the Church walls. What He is saying instead is that His Kingdom does not find its source of origin in this fallen world.

Having said that we know that John’s Gospel does not leave us with a picture of ceaseless enmity between God and “the world.” John makes it clear that the world is not interested in God’s agenda but it is not true that God therefore has no interest in “the world.”

God loves the world (3:16)
Christ takes away the sins of the world (1:29)
Christ is the savior of the world (4:42)
Christ gives life to the world (6:51)
This is at cost for Christ gives His flesh for the life of the World (6:51)

So, we see here that while the world hates God, there is, in the depths of God’s intent, the purpose of reconciling the world unto Himself.

So, as we deal with the world we deal with it as ones who were ourselves part of that world. A world that seeks to create itself by its own fiat word independent of God. We know that this world is opposed to us as disciples of Christ (John 17:14. cmp. 15:18-19) and yet for the sake of Christ we take that Hatred the world has for God’s people and hold out to to the world the command for all men everywhere to repent.

I.) The Work of Christ mentioned in this Prayer

A.) He exegeted the Father (vs.6,8)

The Son came to make the Father known. Much as a minister is required to break open the meaning of a text so that the text might be understood, so the Son was the one who opened the meaning of the Father that the Father might be understood. To say that the Son was the interpretation of the Father is much akin to saying that the Son is the the brightness of God’s glory or to say that the Son is the express image of the Father.

It remains even so today. If we want to know the Father we must needs see the Father in the character of the Son. And the only place that can be known is as found in the Scripture. It is only in the Scripture that we see the Son as the exegesis of the Father.  Apart from the Son no one ever gets to know the Father. The Father’s name … that is the Father Himself is not apprehended apart from the words and works of the Son. This explains why Biblical Christians have always held that there is no salvation apart from a known Son… no intimacy with the Father apart from the Son making the Father known.

We get in significant trouble today in the Church because we don’t spend time understanding the exegesis of the Father by the Son as communicated by Scripture. Instead we envision what we think the Father must be like.

“My God doesn’t haven’t wrath…”
“My God wouldn’t do that…”
“My God indiscriminately loves everyone … ”

The “God” the Church serves today is more often then not a god of their imagination. It is not the God as exegeted and made manifest by the Son.

In His work of manifesting the Father the Son was doing the work of someone who restores old paintings. Meticulously and with great care the restorationist cleans the original painting of all that has worked to mar it over the years, with the result that the painting is now seen again for what it originally was.

In the same way, the Son stripped off the accretions of dirt and filth put upon the character of God by the Pharisees and made the Father known in keeping with His original splendor and beauty.

Christ as Image of the Father’s face,
Bore the flesh of Adam’s race,
Yet, in that Flesh was manifest
The Character of God confessed

B.) He Kept and Guarded His people (12)

Here we must note the explicit language that belongs to the Biblical Christian… to the one called “The Calvinist.”

Note when He speaks of His men here he distinguishes them very clearly from those who are not His own. Christ makes a clear distinction between those who are His and those who are not His. Here is that stout Biblical doctrine of Election.

Article 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom he from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of Salvation.

Now the context here may have more to do with the idea of these disciples being elected to their office as disciples but the larger matter of election to salvation is not far removed when we consider the language when used as applied to Judas, as the Son of perdition.

In Christ insisting that He is only praying for His people we find the same impulse that we heard in John 10 when Christ could speak of “His sheep” and speak of those who do not believe, because they were not of My sheep.

Christ prays for His particular disciples just as He will die for a particular people.  There is particularity all over the Gospel. A Christianity that lack particularity is a different Christianity then the one expressed from Genesis to Revelation.

This particularity though is not only unto privilege but also unto mission (18).

The keeping and guarding that our Lord Christ

C.) He is One with the Father (10, 11)

Purpose and Essence

When the Lord Christ prays, “All thine are mine,” and “All mine are thine,” there is a clear expression of ontological unity being expressed. When the Lord Christ asks that His disciples would be kept by the Father and prays that they were kept by Him we see a “unity of purpose.” When the idea is communicated that just as the Father sent the Son so now the Son was sending His Disciples (Disciples who were given to Him by the Father) (cmp. vs. 18) there is the clear idea of this trinitarian perichoresis intimated in the text.

D.) He Consecrates Himself (19)

The Consecration (set-apartness) spoken of here is certainly a reference to His looming death. Christ sets Himself apart by His death so that they may be set apart for the purpose of being heralds of that death.

In His consecration we see the work of

propitiation, expiation, atonement, reconciliation, active & passive obedience, redemption, ransom,  substitution,

II.) The Requests of the Lord Christ For His Company In this Prayer

A.) Request #1 — The Lord Christ asks that His and the Father’s Disciples will be Kept (Protected) (11-12, 15)

B.) Request #2 — The Lord Christ asks that His and the Father’s Disciples might be One (11)

C.) Requests #3 — The Lord Christ asks that His and the Father’s Disciples May Have Joy (13)

Christ here speaks of the Disciples having His joy made full in themselves.

This idea of joy becomes a sub-theme in the upper room discourse. It is mentioned in 15:11, 16:20, 21, 22, 24 and here. Obviously our Lord Christ is concerned with His people knowing His joy.

It is interesting that our Lord Christ is on the cusp of the Cross work and yet He can ask that the Disciples might have His joy made full in themselves. Obviously, the kind of joy that He is speaking of has the ability to not be extinguished by either sorrow or trauma.

It is to be expected that the Lord Christ might ask for this joy for the Disciples since, per the OT, joy was to be characteristic of life in the Kingdom. In the Kingdom even,  the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose and those dwelling in the Kingdom shall go out with joy.

In contrast to the old Covenant that was characterized by fasting the presence of Christ now is the time of celebration (Mk. 2:19). There is joy unspeakable and the Lord Christ’s prays for His little company that they may have His joy in them.

Well, how might we assess this joy our Lord Christ speaks of? I think when we look at this joy our Lord Christ speaks of we needs to go out of our way to distinguish it from pleasure. This joy is not equal to giddiness or a lack of seriousness. Rather, we might say that this joy that the Lord Christ repeatedly speaks of arises out of the satisfaction that comes from a finished work. This is why, in the shadow of the Cross, the Lord Christ can speak of His joy being made full in His disciples. His joy is driven by His satisfaction in the completeness of His work.

In his commentary on John R. H. Strachan put it this way,

“The joy of Jesus is the joy that rises from the sense of a finished work. It is creative joy, like the joy of the artist. It produces a sense of un-exhausted power for fresh creation. This joy, in the heart of Jesus, is both the joy of victory (15:11) and the sense of having brought His Church into being.”

If this is accurate then the joy that the Lord Christ is interested in having is the joy that comes from a job well done.

It is the joy a parent finds in letting go of well trained children.
It is the joy that comes in the last few breaths of a life well lived.
It is the joy of a battle well fought.

D.) Request # 4 — The Lord Christ asks that His and the Father’s Disciples might be Consecrated (17-19)

Conclusion – recap

At this link

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.com/questions-i-have-after-the-bruce-jenner-interview

We have an advocacy article for Transgenderism being accepted in the Church under the guise of asking putatively harmless questions. The article is written by a CRC pastor and is published by a blog site that is an arm of the CRC itself.  One would think that the implication of the reality that it is published by a blog site that is an arm of the CRC itself means that at both the CRC agency directly involved (Back To God Hour) as well as the denomination itself there is support for Transgenderism being normed in the life of the Church.

According to the “Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation” (GLADD) Transgenderism occurs when one’s gender identity or gender expression  does not match one’s assigned sex. This could mean everything from the mannerisms or dispositions in a man being expressed as a female to a woman cross-dressing to pass as a man to eventually Transsexualism where surgical mutilation is preformed in order to give the appearance of changing a persons sexuality. Not all Transgenders are Transsexuals.

I enter into the repudiation of this article not in the least hopeful of changing the mind of anyone who is responsible for its appearance on a denominational website. Neither one person, nor a hundred people, have the ability to stop a mudslide once started. As such, I write this to rescue the handful of people who might be confused  by Clergy and Church bureaucrats advocating the normalization of perversion. Once something like this is posted the damage is done even if eventually pulled unless there is a well publicized maxima mea culpa.

Rev. Kory Plockmeyer (Herinafter R. KP) writes

In an ABC interview last night with Diane Sawyer, former Olympian and step-patriarch of the Kardashian family Bruce Jenner confirmed his transgender identity and said that he* is in the process of transitioning from male to  female. For many Christians – and, for that matter, non-Christians – the topic of transgender identity is a complete unknown. What questions can we ask that can help us formulate a grace-filled, Biblical theology on this matter?

Bret responds,

First, we should note it is literally impossible to transition from male to female or from female to male. There is no method that allows one to quit being the gender that God created them. Now, certainly people can transition from male to abnormal male but it is not possible for Bruce Jenner to become Brunhilde Jenner.

Second, I don’t know how this subject matter can be a “complete unknown” since everywhere we turn we are being saturated in the idea that the heretofore category of perversity is now to be embraced as ‘normal.’

Third, R. KP desires a grace filled Biblical theology on this matter. Let’s see if we can help him.

When we read Genesis we find,

“And God created man in His image, in His likeness; male and female He created them . . . . and it was very good.”

Here we see that God is binary. He created man as male and female. There is no hint here, or anywhere in Scripture, that God mixed and matched female souls to male bodies or male souls to female bodies. So, ‘a grace filled Biblical theology on this matter’ begins with clearly laying out that there is no biblical evidence that God has created man and woman so that their sexuality and their gender does not match. And we might go on to add that neither is there any non junk science evidence that gender and sex are mismatched. Certainly, if I and 1000 other people, insisted that God gave us the souls of a wolf that wouldn’t, by itself, prove that God puts wolf souls into people. (Though the rise of the Furry movement might find elements of the CRC embracing that idea eventually.)

In continuing to pursue this matter of forming a grace filled biblical theology we might note I Cor. 6 points us toward an answer to Transgenderism.

“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 (malakos), nor homosexuals (arsenokoites), 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9f — NASB).

When we consider Greek dictionaries to tease out the meaning  for these Greek words “malakos” and “arsenokoites,” we discover that this passage does indeed give us insight into God’s mind on Transgenderism.

• μαλακός,  malakós; fem. malak, neut. malakón, adj. Soft to the touch, spoken of clothing made of soft materials, fine texture (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25). Figuratively it means effeminate or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature. Paul, in1 Cor. 6:9, joins the malakoí, the effeminate, with arsenokoítai (733), homosexuals, Sodomites.
  • Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000.
• μαλακός, malakós; soft; (1) of clothes soft (to the touch), delicate (LU 7.25); neuter plural malakoί as a substantive, luxurious clothes (MT 11.8); (2) figuratively, in a bad sense of men effeminate, unmanly; substantivally ? µ. especially of a man or boy who submits his body to homosexual lewdness catamite, homosexual pervert (1C 6.9)
  • Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller. Vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
• μαλακός, malakós; m: the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse–‘homosexual.’ For a context of malakós, see 1 Cor 6:9–10 in 88.280. As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.
  • Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.
• ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ, arsenokoítēs;  an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast
  • Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (76). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
• ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoítēs; gen. arsenokoítou, masc. noun, from ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9;1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27]).
  • Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G733). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
• ἀρσενοκοίτης, arsenokoites /ar·sen·ok·oy·tace; n m. From 730 and 2845; GK 780; Two occurrences; AV translates as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.
  • Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

So, in striving to answer Rev. Kory Polckmeyer’s desire for the formulation of a grace filled Biblical theology we find a good beginning in passages like Gen. 1:26 and I Cor. 6:9f.

Rev Kory Plockmeyer continues,

The more we understand about transgender identity, the more it appears that gender dysphoria, or the experience of feeling as though your gender does not match your biological sex, is innate. If so, is there a theological basis by which to distinguish our response to gender dysphoria from our response to other physical conditions?

Bret responds,

1.) The key words in the first sentence above are “appears,” and “experience.” There is no objective evidence on any of this. All we have is subjective ‘appearances,” and “experience,” combined with some nebulous sense of “innateness.”  And Rev. Kory Plockmeyer would have us think that this equals understanding transgenderism?

2.) In the question that Rev. Kory Plockmeyer offers above there is a tacit push towards equating the sin of Transgenderism with the physical disabilities like cerebral palsy or glaucoma. This is complete and utter nonsense. Physical conditions like CP or glaucoma are measurable and identifiable diseased physical conditions. Transgenderism is a disease of a different sort. It is the disease of someone morally broken by their fallenness. It is true that we have compassion and pity on both the CP victim and the Transgender person but the compassion we have towards those suffering CP is a compassion that comes alongside to minister and help with physical, emotional, and psychological needs that arise due to the physical disease, while the tear filled compassion we have towards the Transgender person is to command them to repent.  The compassion we have for the CP child is to hold out to them the reality that the Lord Christ will heal them in heaven. The compassion we have for the Transgender is to hold out to them the hope that the Lord Christ will begin to heal them now.

When we being to draw the line of equivalence between compassion for the physically broken and the morally broken as Rev. Kory Plockmeyer does in his article that indeed it is true that the tender mercies of the well intentioned are often cruel.

R. KP wrote,

Jenner spoke at length about the difference between gender identity and sexual identity: “I’m not gay. …It’s apples and oranges. There’s two different things here. Sexuality is who you are personally attracted to, who turns you on, male or female. But gender identity is who you are as a person and your soul and who you identify with inside.” With what theological framework do we approach gender identity and how does this differ from our approach to sexual identity?

Bret responds,

1.) Of course when we go down this road the possible permutations are endless and can get quite confusing.

Transgender males who are heterosexual
Transgender males who are homosexual
Transgender females who are heterosexual
Transgender females who are Lesbian
Transgender males who are heterosexual but only as with Transgender females who are also heterosexual
Transgender males who are heterosexual but only was with non-Transgender females who are heterosexual
Transgender males who are homosexual but only as with non-Transgender males who are homosexual

This is only a beginning list. The social media outlet “Facebook” offer 51 possible choices for gender identification. One wonders if the publisher, Rev. Steve Koster, wants us to toy with the idea that all these possible permutations are legitimate expressions within the body of Christ?

2.) The question that Rev. Kory Plockmeyer offers here and that Rev. Steve Koster publishes tacitly implies that all this gender confusion is biblical. We are asked to put all this in a theological framework that accounts for these putative differences. The uninitiated reader will read this and not think, “the theological framework that I need to put Transgenderism in is a framework that names it ‘unbiblical.” No, the uninitiated reader will assume that Rev.’s Plockmeyer and Koster’s question is suggestive that we need create theologies that allow for this gender blenderism.

3.) One thing that is conspicuously missing in all this talk about identity is our identity in Christ.  Where is the discussion that as we find our identity in Christ that men move, in sanctification, from true maleness unto true maleness? Where is the discussion that as we find our identity in Christ that women move, in sanctification, from true femininity unto femininity? Isn’t one of our core beliefs that the more we are sanctified in Christ the more genuinely human we become so that there is a harmony of interests between the binary God created reality of male and female?

4.) Anther reality that should be offered here is that all that Rev. Koster and Plockmeyer are offering here are completely contrary to the reading of Scripture as bequeathed to us by 2000 years of Church History. Unless one considers the Marquis DeSade or Alexandra Kollontai  to be great Reformed theologians it is difficult to find anyone in 2000 years of Church history to be experimenting with mainlining perversity.

R. KP writes,

Gender expression is culturally constructed – it varies from place to place and from time to time. In Scotland, men wear kilts. In ancient Rome, men wore togas. Expected roles change as well. If gender expression is dependent on the culture, what can we say about the uniqueness of the genders?

Bret responds,

1.) The idea that gender expression is a social construct is itself a social construct. It is true that culture impinges on the idea of how gender is expressed but to suggest that gender is merely a social construct and that kilts and togas prove that is breathtakingly simplistic.  Both Roman and Scot cultures were male enough, despite their kilts and togas, to be considered patriarchal. If we could enter a time machine to go back to Rome or Scotland none of us would be confused as to male behavior and female behavior.

2.) Rev. Kory Plockmeyer needs to be reminded that culture is merely theology instantiated. As such there is no appeal to culture without, at the same time, an appeal to theology. Cultural abnormalities of any time or place can not be seen as normal merely because the culture is supporting it. Cultural abnormalities arise from theological abnormalities.

R. KP writes,

Jenner identifies most strongly with the woman he refers to as “she.” Pronoun and name choice is important to people.How might the decision to respect the pronoun and name choice of a transgender person communicate grace and love?

Bret responds,

1.) Read again the first sentence above where we find this snippet, “… he refers to as she.” The male Jenner is identifying most strongly with the female Jenner. Dissociative identity disorder anyone?

2.) Note again this question that Rev. Steve Koster published, pushes the reader to accepting Transgender behavior.  When words like “respect,” and “communicate grace and love,” are used the reader is being pushed in the direction of accepting the behavior as normative. To not make this decision means the one refusing to make this decision is not respectful and is not communicating grace and love. We should note where this behavior is accepted it is at the same time encouraged.

The tender mercies of the well intentioned are cruel.

R. KP wrote,

Jenner’s children and family largely express support. One son suggested, “I feel like I’m getting an upgraded version of my dad.” Jenner went to great lengths to reassure his family that he is still the same person, just living what he believes to be the true version of himself.To what extent is one’s identity consistent, regardless of the gender transition one may make?

Bret responds,

Again note how this question pushes the reader to conclude that Transgenderism is legitimate. After all, the Transgender’s male identity is still consistent with his/her female identity.  What’s the big deal?

R.KP writes,

Jenner shared his struggle with Deuteronomy 22:5, a verse used in some Christian communities to forbid women from wearing pants. Where do we look in Scripture for Biblical approaches to gender and transgender identity?

Bret responds,

Given where we have arrived at, in terms of gender blenderism and Transgenderism, maybe those who opposed women wearing pants were on to something? I know that I would much rather be dealing with the problem of dress wearing women vs. dealing with the problem of the “Back to God Hour” embracing gender blenderism and Transgenderism.

Again, note how the question explicitly pushes the reader into accepting the normativity of Transgenderism.

R. KP writes,

Jenner’s life has included marriages to three different women. Jenner’s struggles with his gender identity contributed to the unraveling of each marriage. His experience is not unique in this. How do we approach transgender identity in a way that supports and celebrates marriage?

Bret responds,

1.) Again, note how the question explicitly pushes the reader into accepting the normativity of Transgenderism.  Rev. Kory Plockmeyer is not merely asking questions. He is advancing an agenda for the Church to accept Transgenderism under the guise of “just asking questions.”

One can’t help but wonder that this perversion advocacy that we find in the Banner as well in this online publication is pursued all to the end of breaking up any resistance to the homosexual agenda that is represented in the current “listening tour” that the CRC committee to provide pastoral guidance regarding same sex “marriage” is now conducting.  A cynical person might look at all this clever and barely concealed advocacy and see a orchestrated agenda to pass sweeping new guidelines into the CRC touching modern sexuality.

2.) We would only note that any identity that leads to multiple divorces cannot be healthy as God has explicitly made it clear that divorce was only allowed by God due to the hardness of men’s hearts. If Jenner’s Transgenderism led to three divorces how is it that we Rev. Steve Koster can seek to norm this illness in the Church.

R. KP writes, 

Like many transgender people, Jenner’s story included depression, years of confusion and suicidal thoughts. The interview highlighted the physical violence experienced by some members of the transgender community. How can the church be a safe space for people struggling with gender identity? What steps can we take to provide healing?

Bret responds,

1,) I should say at the outset that as a Minister I’ve worked with any number of people whose sin made for depression, years of confusion and suicidal thoughts. To suggest that a person having depression, confusion, and suicidal thoughts should be told that that sinful behavior that is driving the depression, confusion and suicidal thoughts is not really sinful is a strange cure indeed. It is akin to eliminating murder by eliminating murder as a crime.

2.) As to the final question we would agree that the church has to be a safe place for people struggling to give up their Transgenderism.  The Church should be a safe place because it is in the Church that we can be reminded that only in Christ can we put off the guilt of sin that drives confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts. The Church should be a safe place because there in the Church we find a company of fellow sinners who are every ready to support one another in putting off the sin that doth so easily beset us all. The Church should be a safe place because in the Church we are reminded that Christ has propitiated the Father’s just wrath against sin (Transgender and all other) and as reconciled the Father to sinners who come petitioning for Grace as clothed in Christ and His righteousness. The Church should be a safe place to hear that just as the old man with its transgenderism was crucified with Christ so we have been raised to walk in newness of life. The Church should be a safe place where we are reminded of the great and luxurious grace of God that took all kinds of sinners and washed, and sanctified and justified them in the name of the Lord so that they who were once children of darkness are now those who walk as children of light.  The Church is a safe place because it not call evil, “good,” and good, “evil.” The Church is a safe place because in the Church you will find the faithful wounds of a friend.

It is the very nard of hatred to get rid of sin by re-defining it as acceptable and normal behavior.