Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) is a key source, with his provocative notion that human learning—the “arts and sciences” of his First Discourse—is actually that which corrupts us and hinders us being truly ourselves. Uncultured instincts and feelings are really who we are; civilization merely hinders, twists, and perverts these, making us conform to its demands and rendering us inauthentic.
Carl Trueman, “ The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” February 25, 2020.
They just had a transgender children’s story hour while my wife was with the kids at the local library. Mothers were showing up with their little boys in dresses. This broke my wife’s heart because we have 3 boys.
Parents are actually bringing their kids to these and giving their kids hormones. The next step is mutilating them surgically. How can parents do this to their own children? They’re now celebrating it.
This fits with the modern parenting ethos of helping the child “realize his full potential” mostly by letting him do whatever he wants. In the case of facilitating his gender transition, parents can sooth their consciences this way since the damage is often permanent and fatal 40% of the time through transgender suicide.
I could go on all day about what I’ve seen even in my own neighborhood. Personally, I have a big Jonah problem with them. Not only do I keep my kids away, but I have trouble even striking up a conversation with people so far removed from reality. There’s a definite “Am I Lot?/Am I Jonah” tension in my mind.
Walt,
It does grieve the heart. Here is where distinguishing a twofold kingdom helps. Inasmuch as we are members of a common/secular sphere, under God’s providence, with unbelievers we have a right and even a duty to urge the magistrate to uphold natural law and preserve order. Parading the sexuality of the mentally ill (e.g., Drag Queen Story Hour or the episode you mention) in a tax-funded facility would have been criminal not long ago and should be again. It is obvious to sensible people, rational believers and unbelievers, that sexualizing young children (and using tax-funded employees/facilities to do it) is not in the interest of an ordered society. As members of Christ’s body, we live in another sphere of God’s kingdom, the saving sphere, and as members of that sphere we seek to be gracious to our pagan neighbors, to love them, and to seek their conversion. Paul was surrounded by this sort of thing—gross sexual immorality but he did not expect less from pagans. We have to learn to exercise our responsibilities in both spheres simultaneously.
I don’t know what to do about this. Most unbelievers just say, “Who cares” about the transgender thing even if they don’t support it or let their kids do it. I’ve literally heard this. Others are “allies.” Believers tend to be outraged by it, just as Paul was provoked by all the idols he saw on Mars Hill. In man’s/Satan’s kingdom, I don’t see a way to argue for natural law in this case. Unbelievers are either supportive or apathetic.
As far as witnessing, I’m not sure how to go about it. My elderly next door neighbor’s son decided in his 50s he was homosexual. He abandoned his wife and entered a relationship with a 20-something young man who is transitioning to female surgically. I don’t let my boys go over there when he’s there because I don’t want to see how young the elder gay is willing to go. I want to tell them both something to the effect of “REPENT! THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND.” Maybe that would alienate them; maybe they’d actually respond. I think the old lady would just get angry b/c she goes to a Side “A” “church” that flies the rainbow flag where practicing homosexuals administer the sacraments. TBH, I have no interest in befriending the guy and his partner to witness slowly over a relationship and hospitality. I have one life and am not going to spend it that way (sorry, Rosaria), so it’s either the “give ’em both barrels” approach or none. I otherwise avoid this guy and his partner. Call me Jonah, but that’s it. At this point, I’m doing what Lot should’ve done far sooner.
Walt,
People are still people. They are still made in God’s image. They still know the moral law, however much they may seek to suppress it. The Spirit is still sovereign. He still uses his moral law to convict sinners and his gospel to bring his elect to new life and true faith. We love our neighbors. We treat them graciously, not as personal enemies. We pray for opportunities to give witness to the faith and to our faith, i.e., our personal apprehension of Christ by grace alone, through faith alone.
It’s a lot easier if we’re not trying to “take back America” and the like. We have to think of ourselves the way the 1st century Christians did. The pagans misunderstood them. They pagans were deeply confused but still God used the ordinary means of grace to save his church.
He is doing the same now.
All the weird behavior you can catalogue doesn’t change anything. Your neighbor does what he does because he is unregenerate, desperate, and quite likely the victim of some childhood trauma. That person needs the love of Jesus. He is not outside the pale of grace and neither are we—praise God!
Even Voltaire (to Rousseau “no one has ever been so witty as you are in trying to turn us into brutes: to read your book makes one long to go about all fours …”)!
http://courses.washington.edu/hsteu302/Voltaire%20Letter%20to%20Rousseau.htm
Hume called him a professional hypocrite.
I’m looking at this practically. I get the theory. In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they’re different. Maybe it would help to hear some after-action reports of witnessing to these types of people: what was tried, what was the context, what was the result. Re: DQSH, who has successfully gotten them banned from the local library and how?
“Take back America” was the “Moral Majority” slogan of 30-40 years ago AFAIK. Most people of my generation or younger haven’t heard it or, if they did, didn’t think it was possible or necessary. Nowadays, we hear “transform the culture” or “human flourishing” which comes mostly from the theonomic Left, though there is a cultural mandate in Genesis.
There are some definite similarities to the first century, but there are also big differences. Christianity has spread around the globe now when it was an upstart then. 2000 years of theology have been written now versus then. Christianity ideas are baked into the Western mind and nation-state systems of government. Birth control has made it so that mostly religious people are having children. In this country, that includes Christians though our children seem to be walking away from the faith en masse so we’re essentially just breeders for the Left.
To come to the point, “Behave like it’s the first century” requires a lot of definition and explanation for our context, at least for me.
Walt,
I agree that post-Christendom is different than pre-Christendom but that’s the best template we have.
We know from Scripture that people are people. God’s Word tells us so. Whence do all these converts come? God the Spirit is still converting his elect, former LGBTQ folk, former thieves, former murderers. They all had diapers. They all have parents. Underneath the makeup, the Drag Queen is probably the victim of childhood sexual trauma, who sought affirmation (via sex) from older men. He’s a drag queen bec that’s where he gets affirmation, where he finds community and acceptance. He’s an image bearer in rebellion to God just like I was and possibly you were.
The fact that Christendom was doesn’t change the fundamental reality that your LGBTQ neighbor is still your neighbor. That’s a basic Christian truth. If his house were on fire, wouldn’t you warn him, wouldn’t you try to get him out of the house? Sure you would! And he would thank you. That’s basic humanity, the sub-stratum beneath the politics.
If we don’t move beyond politics with people, we won’t ever be able to talk to them but we must.
Did you read the article by Alan Giles? I thought he hit the nail squarely. Rather than taking the cultural-political bait, he asks them to explain how they got where they are. The way forward is Judo, not Krav Maga. We’re not Marxists. Not everything is political or class warfare.
Scott,
I read Giles’ article and just read it again it didn’t resonate with me. TBH, I thought the target audience was seminary students who went to Christians schools growing up. He comes off as someone who has not dealt much with unbelievers or had many unbelieving friends when he says stuff like this:
Many of us – myself included – have had ONLY non Christian friends or few believing friends their whole lives depending on where they’re from, where they went to school, and what they do for a living. If you grew up in an area with few believers, went to public K-12, and a public university to work in anything outside ministry, you probably didn’t have many Christian friends growing up so you made friends with unbelievers.
Later, he says
While it’s certainly possible that unbelievers are developing bad impressions of Christians themselves, it’s quite possible they’re getting their ideas from the fever swamps of social media. Hardened liberals are quite insular and generally don’t even know Christians and if they do, ostracize them. Ask me how I know. Giles is also ignoring some of the Biblical data. Jesus said, “If they hate me, they’ll hate you.” Believers remind unbelievers that there is a God and He has given a Law that condemns them. Friends who’ve converted later in life described their former hatred of Christians for no real reason.
He writes,
I think he practiced taqiyya with his response. I think most Christians are grieved and provoked by the act of using God’s self-maledictory oath after the Flood to promote something exceedingly heinous and unnatural. Does the abuse of the rainbow truly not bother Giles? If it does, why didn’t he say so? Why didn’t he talk about how the rainbow came to be? Unbelievers want to know what we truly think. Paul was certainly prone to some quick, direct, honest hot-takes on unbelievers’ religion without spending a long time making friends beforehand (Mars Hill, for example).
Bear in mind also that this is essentially part of Giles’ day job, or it will be in the future. This article reads like someone who’s trying to venture out of the seminary classroom for some practical experimentation. His is certainly ONE approach, but not the right approach for everyone in all situations nor the only approach we see in Acts or the Gospels.
Walt,
I’m sorry for your reply. You’re making lots of unwarranted assumptions. You would be surprised at Alan’s background.
1. He wrote it for you, not for pastors, students, or religious professionals.
2. You admit that you don’t know how to talk to your pagan (e.g., LGBTQ) neighbors. He give you a way to do and you accuse him of lying (Taqiyya). That’s rich. Well, brother, to summarize Dwight Moody, I prefer his way of talking to pagans about Christ to your way of not talking to them.
3. If you spent just a little time talking to pagans I think that you would recognize the truth of Alan’s assessment of what pagans assume/think about us.
4. I’m sorry that your apparent investment in the culture way seems to make it impossible for you to recognize the humanity you share with your pagan friends and neighbors.
5. Is there only antithesis with unbelievers (I didn’t say unbelief)? Has their unbelief and sin wiped out every vestige of the image of God in them? Are they worse sinners than you?
6. I’m glad that a well meaning evangelical took the risk of speaking a gospel word to this smart-aleck pagan. God used that imperfect witness to bring me from darkness to light. The foolishness that clouded my mind did not dissipate immediately but he showed me the love of Jesus despite my failings, sins, and foolishness.
7. Of course Alan disagrees with their abuse of God’s signs—but you seem more offended than Jesus was about these things. He wasn’t so offended—holy God nevertheless—that he couldn’t eat with them. He laughed with them.
8. Brother, I say this with all affection: check your heart. I understand that you’re frustrated, even angry, but politics and culture wars aren’t going to change the culture and politics. Engage graciously yes but only the Spirit can change hearts and he does it only through the 1st use of the law, whereby we know the greatness of our sin and misery (that includes you and me) and the gospel of the free salvation of sinners.
He hasn’t ordained culture wars as the means of grace. He uses the foolishness of the gospel and the foolishness of prayer and the like. Paul says something about spiritual weapons. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born again.” That’s true for every one of us, including our LGBTQ neighbors. The culture wars won’t save them but Jesus can.
Scott,
As I said above,
most of the people I have been friends with or associated with have been unbelievers. I said this above and this is still true. Usually, I’m the only Christian in a group of pagans. I don’t think it’s fair to say that I have problems with pagans because many will ostracize believers or I have trouble finding common ground with certain types. If you have a knack for getting along with the LGBT community, great. I find it extremely difficult. I know another believer who can get along with hardened liberals but doesn’t connect with the brand of pagans I’m able to connect with, as I did all last weekend.
Regarding #3, it’s precisely BECAUSE of my frequent interactions and friendships with unbelievers that I think Giles is telling only part of the story about why unbelievers don’t like us. AGain, Jesus said that if they hated Him, they’d hate us – that we’d be reviled.
Are you contradicting yourself in 4 and 5 or am I misreading you? Common humanity contradicts “only anthesis”. Clearly there’s a lot of overlap with us and unbelievers in many things, including our humanity.
If Giles was truly not bothered by the rainbow or at least didn’t think it was worth getting offended over, then I apologize for the “taqiyya” comment but that doesn’t change much of what I wrote above about how his article came off. I was not the only one to find some of Giles’ comments strange nor question his approach. Jesus told many to repent and believe, ate with tax collectors and sinners, he was harsh towards many Pharisees, kind to Nicodemus, told the man in the regions of the Gerasenes he couldn’t come with Him, told the woman at the well she had had many husbands, was astonished by the unbelief of some, was offended when his apostles barred children, and violent towards the money changers in the temple. We don’t know what he said to many people in every situation because it wasn’t recorded but he seemed to have a wide range of responses. Giles is describing ONE approach, not THE approach.
Is it safe to say we’re talking past one-another here?
Walt,
Jesus was harsh with the self-righteous! As should we be. He wasn’t harsh with the broken.
I don’t claim any particular gift in talking with folks who identify as LGBTQ but I’m asking you to try to see them as human first rather than cultural opponents.
So, what’s your plan for giving witness to the faith and your faith?
Broadly then, you’d identify AT LEAST two approaches: a harsh one for the self-righteous and not a harsh one for the broken? In our society, self-righteousness is extremely common. We even have a name for one type of it: virtue signaling.
I deny that I’m seeing them first as cultural opponents. They’re a mixture of things. I’m not thinking in black/white either/or categories. They’re one thing AND another, or usually several other things. I’d say my approach is “Two-Kingdom.”
I’ve already spilled my guts. What’s yours? Do you find that there are certain types of people you don’t click with or some better than others?
Walt,
The self-righteous whom Jesus rebuked were religious leaders, not the unbelieving prostitutes but yes, I’m not advocating a one-size fits all approach to apologetics/witness.
I’m glad that you’re embracing some sort of kingdom distinction. As I keep saying, I would prefer to use Calvin’s “twofold government” language to signal that God is sovereign over all things but administers his kingdom in two spheres.
As to antithesis and commonality, I think you misread me. I was asking a rhetorical question. Is there only antithesis? The expected answer is no. Of course there is a theological/spiritual anthesis between belief and unbelief but all of us humans are sinful image bearers. Some of us God has graciously renewed. Others have yet to be renewed. Some will never be renewed but we don’t know whom God will or won’t renew. We love and seek to be gracious to all.
Re: evangelism, I’ve written (and done) a great deal. Most recently I published the essay by Alan Giles but you discount that. There is a library of posts on witness on the HB as well as the recently published essay in this volume:
New In Print: Faithful And Fruitful: Essays For Elders And Deacons
Dr. Clark: Weren’t we given a different standard for dealing with unbelievers who masquerade as Christian teachers? https://cbmw.org/2020/03/05/pca-church-hosts-lgbt-arts-festival/
Bob,
Can you elaborate on the question?
What I’m saying is that it seems the apostle Paul didn’t counsel “winsomeness” with false teachers like Greg Johnson as compared with run of the mill unbelievers.
I read Johnson’s response to that article and this jumped out at me:
I wonder if Johnson has ever thought about whether he is getting as close to sin as he could in his ReVoice ministry? He has confessed his attraction to the same sex, so I think that would make him the wrong candidate to run a same-sex attraction ministry due to the temptation to aggravate his sins? Further, since homosexuality involves close acts between the same sex, is it wise for him to “get close as possible to sinners” of the same attraction? It would certainly be unwise to put someone who struggles with pedophilia in charge of a children’s ministry, wouldn’t it?? His statement reminds me of an embedded confession.
Johnson continues
This is true but Jesus never identified as a homosexual nor with any other sinful orientation. We’re not Jesus. We’re much weaker and all of us have specific weaknesses in certain areas. For example, those who struggle with a drinking problem shouldn’t go to bars to witness.
It seems a bit like a “straight” man doing marriage counselling and only seeing the wife, and on their own too!
The part about the explanation that floored me was this: “ Details from the Transluminate event announcement describe performances that include themes of gay marriage, transgenderism, and even trans-speciesism.“ Trans-speciesism? Really? Can anyone give me any rational reason why Greg Johnson still is allowed to preach in the PCA? I submit that Memorial Presbyterian if not the Missouri Presbytery or the PCA can no longer claim that they exhibit one of the marks of a true church: Discipline. And don’t tell me about how the wheels of church polity grind slowly. This has been gong on for years.
Bob,
Who, outside the Missouri Presbytery, knew about Luminate? I did not. I doubt that many in the PCA did. This issue will be addressed much more quickly than the FV was—that took several years. There have been reasons to be concerned about the Missouri Presbytery at least since they refused to discipline Jeff Myers for teaching the FV theology but I wouldn’t use that as a reason to denounce the entire PCA.
Dr. Clark: I am confused. Why do you say “This issue will be addressed more much more quickly than the FV was…”? Do you know something we don’t? The ReVoice issue has been going on since 2018 and Greg Johnson is announced as one of the featured speakers at this summer’s ReVoice conference at the Chase Park Plaza hotel.
Bob,
I may.
There were overtures to the 2019 PCA GA and there are multiple overtures the 2020 GA. The latest revelation, that Memorial has been hosting a gay theatrical operation apparently has even the Missouri Presbytery upset. Some of those overtures have been featured on the HB.
Scott,
I have NEVER embraced a theonomic or Kuyperian framework. I have ALWAYS embraced a “Two-Kingdom” distinction since I became a Calvinist nearly 20 years ago and I can give you a page of references to call to confirm this if you like. Our main misunderstanding and disagreement is not over whether the “Two-KIngdom” approach is correct but in the application of natural law to it, particularly in the categories of roles of women and government. You and I mostly talk past one-another on the topic of government as Brian Lee describes here. I am reading Tuininga’s latest book on Calvin and the Two-Kingdoms.
Agreed. I re-read it. Thanks.
Re: evangelism, I’ve written (and done) a great deal. Most recently I published the essay by Alan Giles but you discount that. There is a library of posts on witness on the HB as well as the recently published essay in this volume:
The most helpful thing I’ve found that you posted was Leon Brown’s book. He was talking about hospitality and witness long before it was cool. I’ve tried his approach. I’ve found that hospitality is a two-way street, difficult in post-modern American contexts and not a “one-size fits all” approach to evangelism (not that Brown was saying it was). We should, at a minimum, fix hospitality in our churches immediately.
The amazing and scandalous good news is that God justifies the wicked. Even the sexually perverse. His love is unconditional on us because it is conditioned on the alien, perfect righteousness and sacrificial death of His Son. Jesus presented himself by engaging with sinners. But his purpose was not to tell them that God accepts them in spite of their sins, but because God has provided a remedy. He always convicted of sin and then presented Himself as the only way to the Father. We need to love the sinner but if we show acceptance of the person in spite of
his sin, we are not following Christ’s example. We do need to convey the message that we disapprove of the sin because it is a violation of the moral law. When the person is convicted and in despair of offending God we can present the good news. If we think we can win people to Christ through unconditional acceptance, we only confirm the person in their lost condition. Sinners only come to Christ savingly when they understand their need of a Saviour. Grace is free only because Christ paid the price of our freedom. The self righteousness need to become aware that they are in need of a Saviour before they will come to him.
Bingo. At what point do you apply the first use of the law? It takes wisdom to know but you definitely don’t want to delay forever. Neither do you want to violate the Law in the process of befriending unbelievers or witnessing (the third use). The world is both coercive and seductive and you can end up going along to get along. Most of us with a lot of unbelieving friends have done this. Also, without ever clearly presenting the Law, unbelievers never know their need for an alien righteousness. I think the self-righteous are especially in need of the Law. Machen said
I assume this would apply to Christian witness also. There is a commonality with unbelievers for the sake of friendship but are we neglecting antithesis in an effort to get along?
Walt,
Yes, we need to confront our neighbors with the law but Christian witness is not preaching nor is it, properly, evangelism. It’s the minister’s job to confront the lost with the 1st use, the 2nd use, and the 3rd use. Witness requires takes wisdom. It might be that one needs to confront someone directly with their sin and need for the Savior but, in my experience, most Christians rarely give witness to their faith (their personal trust in Christ) or to the faith (the faith once for all delivered to the saints) I’m not asking them to do the work of preachers. I’m only asking them to point fellow sinners to Christ.
I’m not telling you or anyone not to tell one’s neighbor the greatness of his sin and misery but I hasten to observe that in the Heidelberg, the 1st thing we confess is not our neighbor’s sin but our own. Perhaps that’s a good place to begin with our neighbors too?
Good point, Dr.Clark. Yes I think that is what is called witnessing. In talking to people about Christ we begin by telling them how we in our lost, sinful condition found peace and forgiveness and freedom from the guilt of sin when we trusted in Christ as our righteousness. Because conviction of sin in regeneration drove us to that point where we saw our desperate need of the Saviour. Any Christian can share how they came to Christ. All Christians are part of a royal priesthood called to share the good news.
After we have shared, we leave it to the Holy Spirit who alone can convict of sin, which only comes through regeneration.
We are called to be a holy, or separated people who do not join in the sinful practices of this world because in gratitude for what Christ has done, we desire to please a holy God who hates sin, and we so we want to please him through striving to obey to His law. God calls us to avoid the sinfulness of our culture.
Our avoidance of evil and obedience to the moral law is how we make our light to shine, and that attracts the world’s attention, so we have opportunities to witness.