Loading summary
Transcript11 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Inoculation against progressive self expressionism. Hoping to keep your biblical immune system ready to wage war against every ideological virus. My name is Jonathan Swan and I am the executive editor of icon, a journal for biblical anthropology. We were without our president today, but we do have our executive director, Colin Smothers. Column. Welcome Colin. Welcome back to the show. I called you Colin or Colum.
- [00:37]
B
Column rhymes with Gollum. That's a little weird.
- [00:40]
A
Sorry, my bad.
- [00:42]
B
I prefer Colin. That's okay.
- [00:43]
A
Okay, good, good, good. Colin, we have been discussing basically through the spring and now into the summer denominational meetings, which doesn't sound terribly exciting, I'm sure to our listeners, but the content of these are so important to church life for Christians in these denominations. We have another one that has created waves in the last few weeks that we just can't ignore coming out of the pca. PC usa. My apologies. And they recently voted on a overture called on access to healthcare. Gen 2 would be the technical designation for it. And in it they say this, it's very short. They say that they declare that the PC USA supports all individuals to have access to all medically necessary evidence based gender affirming healthcare. Now this vote went into the affirmative 441 to 30. Colin, in your reading of this statement and you're looking at some of the news articles that are coming out of it, what's going on here in the PC usa?
- [01:59]
B
Good question. Insanity is what can only be said about what's going on in the PC usa. The original proposal, there was some controversy around the original language which actually included the phrase including minors. And so either the committee or ultimately the body ended up pulling that language out. So it's all individuals, you know, including minors. And then they go on to talk about deserving of this body affirming or gender affirming care. Note the Orwellian speak here. They're not naming the actual procedures and the actual undertakings that this entails. We're talking about cutting off the healthy body parts in order to affirm someone in their delusion. And the PCUSA has just as a body together affirmed their support for this mass delusion which is leading to mass desecration of the body created in God's image. Um, so we need to take a step back here and we need to really appreciate how crazy things are and how far off the rails this denomination is going. Ultimately when they even removed that language so called, or when they were saying including minors, the, the reason why they actually ended up removing them. The rationale that I read was that it was assumed that minors are included in this support. So it's not that they were backing off, you know, their support for minors undergoing these kinds of surgeries, but actually that phrase all individuals actually includes minors. So we're talking about full on affirmation of transgender surgeries, the kinds of surgeries that are mutilation, the kinds of surgeries that are irreversible, the kinds of surgeries that we see almost every month now a detransition are coming out and acknowledging that they regret and they have no recourse to be able to put that genie back in the bottle. And yet here is the pcusa, this supposedly Christian denomination, supposedly in the name of Christ, giving this kind of full throated support. It is not only insane, it's blasphemous.
- [04:25]
A
Colin, you just mentioned that they removed the phraseology including minors. Christian Post has a statement on this from their moderator this year. Let me just read from part of their post. It says the Rev. Olivia Lane, moderator of the 227th General Assembly's gender and Sexuality Justice Committee, explained to those gathered that her committee amended the overture to remove the phrase including minors from the text which originally read, the PC USA supports all individuals, including minors, to have access to all medically necessary evidence based gender affirming health care. The article goes on and says, according to Lane, this was done, quote, not to exclude young people, but rather at the request of the young adult advisory delegates who were on the committee. She says these delegates asked us to consider whether the phrase, however well intentioned, might be weaponized to cause further harm to the very children it named. Then Lane continues, the committee heard that request and acted on it by providing comment with the clear and stated understanding that all individuals means exactly that, all without exception, without qualification and without age limit. So the PC USA is going further than many even like secular, you know, non Christian LGBT advocates are going because this, this spokesperson is saying that there's, there's no age limit to their statement. It basically applies to anyone, anyone has the right to pursue these things. We shouldn't get in the way. It's interesting. If you look in their internal documents, they have what's called like a justification. The rationale is what, it's how it's phrased for these things. And the way that they are advocating for this position is basically in two points. They argue that transgender surgeries, treatments, we're talking about hormone blockers as well as these sterilizing, mutilating physical surgeries, our natural rights. So in their rationale, they say this Resolution supports Owens is another resolution from last year. Overture from last year supports his access to health care he deserves and to which he is entitled, based on the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment, with a guarantee of life, liberty and property. And then it goes on. So their first argument is, hey, this is a natural right that people have. And then secondly, that they're medically necessary and they have a lot about this in their rationale. But we have presented on this show and we've seen it in broader culture that opposed rather than the medical institutions now growing in support of these kinds of procedures. We're actually seeing more and more bodies and agencies and governments pulling away from these kind of treatments because they actually don't do the things that the PCA is saying that they do, which is that they affirm people and that they actually make them more well and more healthy. We, of course, know that you can't heal someone who's struggling with gender dysphoria by mutilating their flesh. It may affirm them in their false belief, but it doesn't actually cure them. It doesn't actually bring them real healing. So, Colin, we have these things going on in their General assembly right now, but there was also another conversation happening that I want you to kind of introduce to us, and that is in the area of polyamory. Can you explain to us what is that conversation that's emerging sort of at the same time as this other one?
- [08:25]
B
Yeah. So the way the Presbyterian denominations work in their General Assemblies, they are composed of these varying presbyteries that exist across the country. And these various presbyteries can actually make these overtures that then the body gathered at the General assembly then vote on. And one presbytery suggested an overture on monogamy, requiring ordained Presbyterian ministers, PC USA ministers, to adhere to sexual fidelity within a monogamous covenant. Of course, they've already redefined marriage in their documents. In fact, going back to the last conversation, they did that in 2011, long before there was public support for gay marriage in this country. They were the leading edge on this question. As is the case with every progressive denomination, they are actually far outpacing the left and actually leading the left down this road of destruction. But, yeah, on this monogamous question, there was one presbytery of all the PC USA presbyteries that put this resolution together and this overture together. And it was actually when it was introduced to the floor and people were talking about it to the, you know, in the run up of the General assembly, there was not wide Support. In fact, there was a lot of backlash against this overture basically coming out in favor. They never had an actual vote on it. In fact, they referred this overture to a committee. So they've now formed a committee. But the general tenor from the PCUSA coming out of this denominational meeting was actually against monogamous commitments and for what they call polyamorous relationships. So we now have this study committee that I guess is going to report out next year to General Assembly. It's going to make some kind of recommendation for what the PCUSA should do going forward. And there are several reports and stories about this. One I read from rns talking about these groups that are within. Embedded within the PC usa, that are full steam ahead on polyamory, and they not only are leading the denomination in that direction, but they seem to know that this is where the denomination is. So this presbytery that made this monogamous overture was very much on an island going into this assembly, and we'll just have to see how that plays out. But. But as many people have pointed out, that's sort of the next frontier, the. The next sort of coalition that's forming in this LGBT insanity. You know, they got gay marriage done. They thought they got trans rights secured. It's like the next thing on the agenda that the next page in the book that they're after is polyamory. So opening up, you know, for those that don't know what that that word means, polyamory just means many loves or being in relationship with several people at one time. And I even saw one report talking about one of these organizations leading a workshop on what they called faithful polyamory. I mean, talk about an Orwellian phrase, faithful polyamory. And they actually used, again, blasphemous appeal, the image of the Trinity, to talk about how humans can be in these kinds of relationships and what we can learn about that. So we're talking about people being in relationships with several individuals at once, you know, male, female, et cetera. And calling that not only faithful, but calling that some kind of a covenant or marriage that needs to be respected. And, you know, that's just unbelievable that that's where we're at. But, of course, anyone that's paid attention in the last decade, it's also expected.
- [12:02]
A
Yeah. In some of the reading I did, the arguments have to do with looking back at some of the patriarchs and multiple wives that they had. But when you look at Scripture, you look at Genesis 1 and 2, which lays out the blueprint for mankind and for marriage. In a covenant between a man and a woman. You look to the New Testament and Paul and Jesus. Each time they're speaking of marriage, they don't go to David, they don't go to Abraham, they don't go to any of those people. They go back to Genesis 1 and 2, which lays out God's good design for man and for women. Colin, multiple times in this podcast you've mentioned Orwellian language. And that is the kind of thing that J. Gresham Machen talked about in his Christianity and liberalism, that Francis Schaeffer talked about in his books, where they both sort of said, hey, listen, we have in the one case, modernism, and in the other case, sort of new forms of religion. They're basically using Christian terms, emptying them out of their orthodox, historic Christian content and then infusing them with the spirit of the age. And sadly, that's what we're seeing here in the PC USA and in far too many denominations. And it's why at CBMW and there's many other people, of course, doing this, we pay attention to these trends broadly, but also within our denomination. So in the case of you and I, Colin, that would be the Southern Baptist Convention. We find it very important to address the issue of female ordination, female pastors, the basic issue of complementarianism, because as those who started CBMW were saying, listen, if you get this wrong, I mean, John Piper and Wayne Gudam said this in the first recovery, Biblical manhood and womanhood. They said that if you get this wrong, you're going to see increased levels of homosexuality in society. Well, boy, were they right. But they were more right than they even knew. Because now we have denominations not only discussing homosexuality, but now transgenderism and even this summer, polyamory. And so Christians, these are the battles of our age. These are the issues that we have to be walking in lockstep with scriptures on. Go ahead.
- [14:32]
B
Amen. Yeah, speaking of scripture, I don't know if you noticed the irony in that article that you sent me over in preparation for this podcast. The name. Did you notice the name of this overture that they, that they adopted regarding, you know, support and affirmation for these surgeries. It was labeled Gen 02. So G E N O2. My mind immediately went to that looks like the abbreviation for Genesis Chapter two. And here you've got, in the name of, you know, Gen 2, they are affirming what the Bible explicitly would deny with its clear teaching on male and female created in God's image in Genesis Chapter two. And so absolutely The Bible is clear. Christians need to be clear on where we stand and what we see. I mean, one other final action that we haven't even talked about, the PC USA took was amending, actually, the ordination process, where they are adding questions now to sort of filter out ministers, you know, pastors and elders for ordination. Exactly. On these points. They're asking about the LGBT revolution. They're asking about how they are, you know, these candidates are either affirming or allies or whatever to this radical ideology. And again, in one of the reports that I read, they are intentionally doing so. They have moved from along with the whole culture. It looks like they're driving this way. They're no longer content with acceptance, and actually they're no longer content with even affirmation. So we've moved from acceptance to affirmation, and now they explicitly are saying they want accountability on this issue. So they are ready and willing now to thin their ranks on this question. And here's the thing, conservatives. We need to be doing the same thing on our end regarding biblical faith fidelity. Are you with the Bible? Are you with Genesis chapter one, Genesis, chapter two, what God has revealed regarding male and female? Or are you not? Because those are. There's only two spots to stand. You're either with God and his word, or you are against him. And this is one of those clear dividing lines. And I'm thankful for this organization and for the many partner organizations across the country that are standing firm.
- [16:51]
A
Thank you, Colin. And thank you to those listening. Hey, you can follow up on this conversation and so much more. Thousands of resources on cbmw.org.