As was needed I responded to the slanderous misuse of a video clip by Eric Mason, author of Woke Church, for the first hour or so today, including the playing of the entire context from the July 26, 2016 Dividing Line from which he took his clip. A wide ranging discussion about the woke church, critical theory, identity politics, and the degradation of reason and communication in the church today. Then we looked at the “challenge” Dr. Riddle posted on Tuesday and discussed how Riddle’s diminishment of the importance and value of the “vaunted papyri” in his service of the TR can be validly used against any proper defense of the NT that we would present today. Just under 90 minutes today, and we plan on doing another program tomorrow, same time.
Had some fun with a new video from Gene Kim, played a new RFG intro, looked a little at Steven Anderson and the TRTrads, delving into issues of textual criticism, the transmission of the text, etc. Then for the last 20 minutes or so transitioned into an important discussion about the supernatural and the life of the Bible-believing, sola scriptura confessing Christian in light of the amazing events in the life of my fellow pastor at Apologia Church, Jeff Durbin. Just over 90 minutes today.
Decided to do a program about 15 hours after getting home from Australia, so I hope I made some sense! Seemed OK to me anyway! Talked about the explosion of egalitarianism in light of the “go home” controversy first, then moved on to developments in the transgender movement’s attempts to destroy any meaningful understanding of sexuality and gender. Eventually got to report on the trip, though I think I spent a solid 15 minutes or so on something that may only be important to me: basic rules for approaching a speaker after he has spoken. Don’t get mad at me, try standing for a few hours in my shoes first! Then we went over the debates and events “down under.” I did not even make mention of some of the wild-eyed attacks launched by folks who simply wish they were doing similar things—those attacks stand as their own refutation.
Next program on Thursday will be a Dividing Line/Apologia Radio Mash Up from ReformCon. Join us…when? I haven’t a clue! Stay tuned!
Take a look at this article. Let’s start out with some truth: American Dawn Orwick is the proper, logical, truthful 35-39 year old sprint champion. Rhys McKinnon, a biological male, is a radical (and very aggressive) advocate for the destruction of logic and science in sports who has taken advantage of the current cultural madness to collect for himself a couple of rainbow jerseys at the expense of biological females by competing as a pretend-female. Test his genetics: XY. He did not “transition” (a dream term that may or may not include emasculation and chemical alterations) until WELL after puberty, and hence has all the biomechanical advantages that males have: bone structure, muscle structure, lung capacity, etc. Beware: Rhys is well trained in twisting the science to make himself appear legit, but the reality is there for anyone who wants to dig past the rhetoric. This is a middle-aged guy beating the girls in sprint on the track on a bike, nothing more.
Now, you may buy into the current cultural madness about the fluidity of gender, or the autonomy of the human mind that allows it to be something other than what genetics and history and logic say it is. You have the right to believe the earth is flat, too. But notice the title given this article: “Slams Transphobic Critics.” He who controls the language wins, especially in a day when almost no one trains the young to think clearly and critically, honoring logic, consistency, and coherence as means by which we show ourselves to be seeking to think God’s thoughts after Him. The term “transphobic” is one of the attack terms developed over the past few decades that by its mere use ends logical conversation and debate. It actually has almost no inherent meaning when analyzed. The Greek term φόβος means “fear.” As my dear Greek professor said in class long ago (I may have been the only person paying close attention), “Now, the Greek term for fear means….fear.” A wise observation. So phobias are irrational fears–well, at least, they were back when language was supposed to correspond to reality and truth. Today you simply take a cause you are promoting, such as homosexuality, or transgenderism, and you attach “phobe” to the end to create a word-weapon that has absolutely no connection to reality. A “homophobe,” logically, is a person with an irrational fear of their own gender. But, of course, what is meant today is anyone who in any way opposes the supremacy and celebration of homosexuality. So in the linked article we read of Rhys McKinnon slamming “transphobic critics.” What needs to be understood by any clear thinking individual is that what is being said is completely different than what is meant. A “transphobic critic” is simply someone holding to the view of gender that has been held by humanity for the entirety of recorded history. No one before, at the earliest, 1970, could have possibly understood the use of “transphobic” that appears here. But transphobic is even less meaningful than homophobic because the operative term “trans” is a fantasy: no one can “transition” so as to be truly transgender in the first place. You cannot change the XY chromosome to an XX chromosome. You cannot go back and change history. Yes, this is the drive behind the horrific abuse of children, seen in the evil woman in Texas seeking to destroy her son’s life and identity. But there simply is no such thing as “transitioning,” and holding it out as a hope for happiness is one of the reasons why those who fall for the lie end up with an even higher suicide rate than before. So the idea again is, “transphobic” means “anything that does not bow down to the radically changed worldview that does away with biological gender.” In other words, all of mankind was “transphobic” for all of history. Consider that.
So let’s make one more observation before we conclude. “Womanphobic” just doesn’t work as a word. So we have a different term that has flown into prominence in our vocabulary over the past few years: misogynist. Thankfully, at least, it once again points us to the importance of Greek in the development of our terminology, for it comes from μισέω, to hate, and γυνή, woman. But that is not how it is being used in common conversation. There are true misogynists in the world, and they are a loathsome bunch. But look at the comments, made by Christians, in response to John MacArthur’s comments last week. Since JM does not buy into egalitarianism (and all this “soft complementarianism is just egalitarianism dressed up in enough make-up to get it through the door) he rejects the proposal that the Scriptures just forgot to provide qualifications for women elders in the church. He actually, positively, believes the Scriptures present a created, purposeful, fulfilling, and good distinction between men and women in their respective roles in church and family. So what term did I see being used by all the “woke” progressive “evangelicals” about his comments? Misogynistic. Woman-hating. No, no, that’s not what they meant. Well, it is what they said, and the term intentionally carries that kind of negative meaning. Words matter, and what this showed is that many leaders in “BigEva” today are just as willing to abuse language by using terms like misogyny as all their fellow travelers on the left are willing to abuse terms like homophobe or transphobe. Words matter, and words often expose the worldview better than anything else. Pay them close attention.