Respondeo

Reflections on order

Respondeo

Category: Witness

Viking warrior png sticker illustration

Female Police Officers? Understanding the Typology of the Sexes in Scripture

By

On June 3, 2024

In Hermeneutics, typology, Witness

To the reader:  I wrote this letter to the editor when I saw an article profiling a female police officer in the Clarion, a magazine in the Canadian Reformed Churches.  I was a pastor in the Canadian Reformed Churches until about a year ago when I was called to ministry in Fort St. John with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches.

My letter was not received by the editing board of the Clarion and will not be published in the Clarion.  However, I still wanted to publish this, because the problem I am dealing with is far broader than just the Canadian Reformed Churches. It is a problem within Conservative Reformed Christianity.  Therefore, the parts that are more confrontational, ought to confront us all.  I thought it would be helpful to share this letter then, with a broader audience.  I removed some details as they are not necessary for a broader audience to be aware of.  I hope this will be helpful for the church.  It’s not exactly an article that will make me popular with certain groups, but regardless it is a necessary article.

Letter to Editor

I was disappointed to see the article “______________________” in the ___________ edition of the Clarion. There were in fact many good things to say about it: ­­­________’s witness in her life is wonderful to read about.  She obviously takes both her faith and her job seriously and does a lot of good for the community.  She is a testament to what a Christian should look like in a world that is full of evil and the hatred of God. It is wonderful to hear of her work in the prevention and response to domestic violence.

My concern is with the profession she has chosen and even more with the Clarion’s choice to highlight and therefore normalize female police officers among reformed folk.   The name Clarion suggests a desire to give clear warning against the lies of this present age.  Not only does the Clarion fail in truth and clarity here, but it aids and abets the egalitarian spirit of this age.

Scriptural types

I argue that there is enough in the patterns of scripture, and the general teaching about male and female in scripture that should at least make us very cautious about women in the role of policeman or soldier. There is enough in scripture that while we might permit it, we will not openly condone it whether explicitly or implicitly.   I am not one to draw strict lines on the question of sex and occupation, but as we go into the arena of the warrior, we ought to be very careful.  The depictions of female acts of war are exceptional in scripture.

The opening passages of scripture teach that man is primarily called to the role of guardian.  While Adam and Even are together called to take dominion, it is Adam who is called to guardianship of the garden; to care for and to keep the garden.  This is God’s description of Adam’s role before Eve is in the picture.  Genesis 2:15, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden to work it and to keep it.”  The word for keep is also to guard.  It is failure to guard against the serpent that results in the fall.  Eve assists in that guardianship, but primarily that role belongs to the man. The woman is called to work side by side the man in the work of dominion, but she is not called to guardianship.

Even that work of dominion is differentiated in the sexes. Rich Lusk gives further insight:

“The different roles assigned to the man and the woman in marriage are not arbitrary but are rooted in our creation design. Scriptures show us there are deep differences in men and women, going back to the way the man and woman were created. The man is to be the protector and provider. His wife is his glory and his helper. The man is made from the earth and is oriented to the earth and therefore to dominion over the earth. The woman is made from the man and therefore oriented toward the man and relationships.”

The big takeaway in the issue we are dealing with is that man is called to be a guardian. Police are a type of guardian.  Soldiers are a type of guardian.  Elders and Pastors are a type of guardian. Women take guardianship roles when men fail in those roles, in exceptional circumstances.  I argue, not that a woman may never take the role of guardian, but against the normalization of women as guardians.

Deuteronomy 22:5

Now of course, I hear the response ready-formed: the police officer of today is not necessarily involved in combat roles and presumably a woman can choose such a role among the police.  I will answer that in more detail in a moment, but to establish some groundwork for that response, I want to go to Deuteronomy 22:5.  God’s teaching here fills out the patterns of the Adam and Eve’s creation.  In fact, the exposition of that verse should itself be enough of a response to such a claim.

Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”  There are some difficulties in interpreting these passages, but it is amid a transition in the text that moves from laws about murder to laws about sexual immorality.  Verses 6 and 7 deal with care for the survival of animals and verse 8 deals with the care of your neighbor.  These are positive applications of the sixth commandment, care for nature and care for the life of your neighbor.

This would suggest that verse 5 also has something to do the sixth commandment as well.  We may think that this is to do with the seventh commandment, cross dressing, and the attenuating evils of those actions. Certainly, that is there, but there is more going on here. 

Examining the translation is revealing.  While the translation “woman’s cloak” is good for it refers to a woman’s garment, the translation of “man’s garment is not necessarily a good translation.  The Hebrew word refers to a word, matter, or thing.  This would be a word, matter, or thing that is associated with man.  And clearly in the scriptures matters of war are associated with man. The word for man is also unique, a word that we might translate as “strong man,” again the emphasis on man as warrior. This would suggest that the things of man that a woman ought not to wear, are the gear of a warrior, the apparel of a warrior.

This is parallel to the following verse, which talks about preserving the mother bird or we can think of another verse, “do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”  These all present something similar.  Do not use the source of life as a source of death.  It is improper for a woman to take on the role, the job, the appearance of a warrior, to wear the clothing of one that is associated with death.

So how does this apply to the policeman? Police are the executive arm of the ministry of vengeance.  Even if our society wants policemen to be social workers, that is still what they are.  If God gives the sword to the civil magistrate to punish evil and protect good (Romans 13), then in our society the police are the sword. In a sense it doesn’t really matter if they do a lot of social work, their order is established as an arm to carry the sword of vengeance.  Wearing their gear is associating oneself with that calling.  So, they like the military are associated with the work of death.  To wear their uniform and their gear is to associate oneself with the sword of vengeance.

A comparison: men are exclusively called to ordained office.  They are called to use the keys of the kingdom, as the Catechism puts it, preaching and church discipline, and that is central to their authority.   Women can fulfill any number of functions that a Pastor or elder must do. She can provide counsel.  She can visit. She can encourage.  But she is not to, as Paul says, have spiritual authority over a man.  If the policeman is a physical guardian, the pastor, or elder, is a spiritual guardian.

This makes me wonder: If the reformed normalize female warriors in our streets, will the reformed eventually normalize female spiritual warriors in our pulpits?

Exceptions and Normalization

Considering other passages of scripture, such as the story of Jael and the woman who killed Abimelech, I think that God’s concern is the normalization of these attitudes.  Some women in scripture are praised for participating in acts of war.  God does not want this normalized, however, which is the very thing our society is trying to do today, and it appears that the Clarion is trying to do it as well.  While there are exceptions, the normalization of these things is an abomination.

Confirmation in the New Testament

And if we think that this is just a matter of the Old Testament, try to guess at Paul’s cultural assumptions in passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, as well as 1 Timothy and Titus. Particularly, we can look at 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul assumes the good of symbolic distinctions between men and women in the church.  While I do not argue that women ought to wear head coverings, the substance of symbolic distinctions in our dress still applies.  In that passage, Paul seems to assume the very same prejudices that characterize Deuteronomy. 

Yes, we can talk about cultural differences, then versus now; too often that way of reading scripture tends to lead us to be very thin or even cultureless in any mores we have, rather than the thick culture that scripture patterns.  We tend to minimize and undermine these patterns, rather than take them seriously. In Western society, to please the cultural elite, Christians then make the exceptions the rule.

Who to Blame

Now I want to be careful here because of the confusion about gender in our society. I am not quick to condemn young women who go into the police profession. They still have responsibility in this, but God is patient with those things done in ignorance.  Neither will I suggest that my one voice is enough to break this ignorance.  Though I am convicted by scripture in this matter, the church must speak together for this ignorance to be broken. Sadly, we are far away from such a moment, but in the meantime, I must still speak the truth.  And yet, however true, I am not quick to condemn for several reasons.

 My experience suggests that these passages are not clearly taught among the Reformed, generally speaking.  In fact, it took me a while to work through this issue, since I wanted to respect contemporary work on this issue, and I didn’t want to respond in a reactionary manner without a careful grounding in scripture, reason, and tradition.

Further there is a lot of pressure from our broader society for young women to be like men. Due to this reality, in my own office, I would give counsel, and then allow for a degree of Christian freedom in this matter.  As a pastor I cannot control people so that they will not make any mistakes.   I trust that the Word will do its work.

Finally, the church body has adopted a lot of the egalitarian beliefs of our society.  Many are functionally soft complementarians: a doctrine, promoted by the words of Kathy Keller: “a women can do anything an unordained man can do.” 

It is hard to blame young woman who do this, because of the lack of careful attention to these issues in reformed churches.  And the equal lack of courage to address feminism in the churches.

Clearly then, the leadership of the reformed world bears blame for this as well. And now the Clarion.  This article simply assumes the culture of the world around us.  We live in a world where the distinctions between man and women are being erased, where any sort of boundary is broken down.  Scripture presents something different in both patterns and instruction, where there are not only differences between men and women, but also cultural distinctions, even symbolic distinctions.  In this matter, the Clarion assumes the culture of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, while continuing to write many fine articles about Christian life and doctrine.  It is a contradiction that cannot last.

Let me end with a clarion call against reformed apathy. I would warn the Clarion and its readers: you cannot culturally imitate the CBC while holding to reformed belief.  The culture of the CBC is opposed to the culture of Christ. The Clarion does a disservice to all young Christian women in its implication that there is nothing wrong in pursuing the vocation of police officer.  

In Christ,

Rev. James Zekveld

Fort St. John, BC.

close up photography of concrete tombstones

How to be Lords of the Universe, Part II

By

On November 4, 2023

In Church, Witness

Here I seek to apply the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 to the church today. Do we live as if “all things are ours?”

I must recognize James Wood’s work on Hoedemaker here, as well. He pointed out the importance place of several of the slogans that I use from Hoedemaker and further contrast them with Kuyper. You can find his article here.

Here is the video:

Resist the Civil Magistrate God’s Way.

By

On August 6, 2022

In Freedom, Reformed Theology, Witness

As we have worked through the context of Romans 13, we have assumed that Christians are allowed to resist evil in general and evil from the civil magistrate in particular. The immediate context of Romans 13 gives us the way of resistance. We are to put away a desire for vengeance and use the opportunities that God gives us to do good to our enemies; as Christ says, “love your enemies.” And so cause “coals of fire” to be placed on their head. Resistance, according to God’s way, is overcoming evil with good.

Now, this would seek to contradict the call to the Christian “to not resist” the civil magistrate in Romans 13. Yet, Paul says do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. This teaching suggests that there is a way to resist evil. Further, Paul speaks of putting coals on the enemy’s head, another image that is suggestive of what we might call resistance. These contextual clues suggest that what Paul means by “resist” in Romans doesn’t necessarily stretch to the meanings we mean by “resist” in English.

Initially, to speak of resisting the Civil magistrate seems to contradict Romans 13 directly. Part of that is simply a language problem. The resistance that Paul is talking about is an insurrection. Paul preaches against actions that seek to overthrow the existing order that God has established rather than seeking the good of the city. God had quite clearly told the Jewish people in Daniel that they would be part of the Roman Empire, and it was foolish to seek to overthrow it. Romans, though they could be cruel, had a strong sense of fairness in their justice system. For the early church, the Romans were very important for their protection from the predations of fellow Jews. It was necessary then to look at the civil magistrate as appointed by God to protect the righteous, even if the individual magistrates may not have been particularly virtuous. 

Because of the Jewishness of early Christianity, there probably was a portion of early Christians that the zealots attracted. These men sought to bring the kingdom of God by physical violence. And this strain has always continued to be a part of the Christian story, especially at times of great social unrest. Some, for example, will accuse my position of being anabaptist. They fail to understand that the anabaptist position is not merely a theory of resistance but a rejection of the very idea of the civil magistrate. The fact that this accusation can stick demonstrates the failure of our awareness of church history. 

I imagine that some hold to an Anabaptistic position today, perhaps secretly, hiding behind Protestant resistance theory, or more openly. I haven’t come across too many. This reality may be because of the circles I interact with. Some may also sincerely hold to legitimately reformed resistance theory but do not always act in line with it. Though I do not see explicit anabaptistic thought, I believe it is out there. I certainly come across attitudes I am uncomfortable with, even if I cannot pinpoint a bad world and life view.

The sum of this discussion is that there is an attitude toward the civil magistrate that all Christians are called to reject. We are not called to insurrection in order to bring in the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God does not come by the sword. We do not reject the civil magistrate, but we submit to him as someone who God ordains. 

So then, how do we resist evil? First of all, we put away our desire for vengeance and ensure in our own hearts that we desire the good of our enemies. At the same time, we must instill in ourselves the courage (a better word might be fortitude) to live according to our calling through good times and bad times. Through the Spirit, we can overcome. Through pursuing the goodness fo God, we can overcome. 

A little note on the side, this attitude does not preclude acts of self-defense. Paul speaks of acts of vengeance or places where self-defense is impossible, unrealistic, or ill-advised. Christians may certainly defend themselves and certainly those who they are charged with.

On the other hand, Christians may also recognize through the Spirit that self-defense is not the right choice in a given situation. I think of men like Nate Saint, who, with his fellow missionaries, refused to defend himself against the tribe he was sent to as a missionary. He understood that in his role, his death would be more effective for the sake of the gospel than self-defense. 

So, we want to overcome evil with good. We are granted the right to take vengeance, the civil magistrate has that right. So we take our “vengeance,” through doing good to our enemies   

If that is the Christian way of resistance, what does that look like? What does that look like when the authorities over us work evil against us? 

What does Paul mean by “Don’t be overcome by evil?”  We can think of Cain, who is warned by God, “sin is crouching at your door: its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”  When we receive evil in our lives, we want to respond with envy, anger, and malice. Our automatic impulse is to respond to evil in a way that satisfies our evil lusts. And so we become the very evil we war against. We end up mirroring our enemies in our desire to overcome them.  

Another way to be overcome by evil is submission to it; becoming, if you will, “a doormat.” When the government gives evil commands, for example, forbidding us to fulfill our calling before God, we cannot submit to it. Sometimes we have no other choice but to submit to a wicked law and if such is the case, we need not worry; we can be confident in our freedom before God, even if we are not physically able to exercise it. However, when we have a choice, we ought to do what is right to the best of our ability. Being a doormat is just as dangerous for your spiritual well-being as mirroring your enemies. There is nothing holy about foolhardiness. There is nothing sacred about cowardice.

To all this, we can again apply the questions of prudence we discussed last time. We need to begin with the disposition of Christ, gentle and humble. The word “gentle” does not mean without offense rather, it means something closer to self-controlled, well-managed, motivated by faith, hope, and love. The result is that the gentle person is careful not to give unnecessary offense but courageous to offend when necessary. Like Christ with whips in the temple, Christ name-calling Herod, Christ condemning the Pharisees, and Christ who was willing to die for his enemies. 

Regarding Covid, my desire here is to defend my approach and others’ approach to this situation. I cannot read hearts. I do not seek to condemn others for their decisions before God (though I have an exception to this when others bind the conscience of those in their care). However, I believe that I have sought to do good in response to a tyrannical government with evil rules. I do not even consider the various individuals in government as particularly evil, but they did uphold evil and destructive laws. 

We overcome evil, including evil from our government, with good. So, let us do the good that our God has called us to. That brings us now to the main body of Romans 13. Next time we will dig deeper into the role of the civil magistrate.  

Live Peaceably with All?

By

On July 5, 2022

In Church, Freedom, Hermeneutics, History, Holiness, The Basics, Witness

Another contextual clue to Paul’s teaching in Romans 13 is the words that come almost immediately before Romans 13, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” The call to submit to the Roman civil magistrate is part of the call to “live peaceably with all.” Our living peaceably with all depends on our ability to obey God; to live according to our calling before him. We are to honor God before men.

What does it mean, “if possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all?” There are a lot of ways to apply those words to today. Does that mean we are to do everything for the sake of peace?

 A good understanding of these words begins with an understanding of the church’s mission. The mission of the church, the mission of Christ, informs what it means to live peaceably with all.   Our goal is nothing less than the reconciliation of all things to Christ. The church’s work in fulfilling that mission can bring times we are offensive to the world around us. In fact, says the scriptures, “to those who are perishing we are the smell of death.” Jesus says, “the world will hate you as they hated me.” This is a reality, but within that Paul wants us to work our best to live peaceably with all, including the civil magistrate, as much as possible.

But when the magistrate interferes with the mission of the church whether in her worship or in her call to love one another, the church is called to stand up to the civil magistrate. But even so, she does not do this in a way that is malicious, angry, or threatening. She does this in a way that continues to keep the peace, recognizes the importance of law and order, and seeks the city’s good.

The good of the city is our ultimate goal. It is a good that is defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ. This good has two aspects. First, the righteousness and order of Jesus Christ:  those in Christ and out of Christ have two different value systems. We want to bring the value system of Christ to the world as a whole.

The second aspect of this good is how it defines our resistance of evil in this world. Or we might say how we seek to bring Christ’s value system into our world’s value system. It is a spiritual war, not a physical one, which we fight. We do not seek to destroy our enemies. No, we love our enemies and aim to transform them by putting away our desire for vengeance and ultimately seeking their good. We seek peace with our enemies by continuing to do what is good, thus heaping burning coals on his head. This action is all according to the law of love and in line with Christ’s act of obedience to our Father in heaven.

Our ability to live peaceably with all depends on our ability to live according to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Living according to the righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only about the things we don’t do, but also about the things we do. An example of the first might be where the government commands us to give a pinch of incense to Caesar or commands us to kill somebody who is innocent. An example of the second might be things that interfere with our worship or our call to love one another, basically anything that interferes with our three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king in Jesus Christ.

We must recognize that we have a duty toward the government as those who bear the sword for vengeance. According to this calling, they are to defend the righteous and condemn the wicked. We are called to give due honor, due obedience, and due monetary support, with regard to that calling. That is part of the righteousness and order of Christ. Some could argue that those things interfere with our ability to fulfill our duty as Christians, but they are also part of our duty as we seek the good of those in authority over us. Ideally, they also secure the peace and order of the community of God.

But when the civil magistrate begins to use its monopoly on force to deny or undermine our duties, then we ought to start to think through where we might owe obedience to God before we owe obedience to the government.   I say start because there is an important place for patience and for conversation before action.

Here I want to discuss a bit the use of prudence in these things in making that decision about how best to respond to various types of tyranny. The very command “as much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” assumes a call to prudence. Our goal is the peace of God, but at the same time, faithfulness can disturb the peace. Ahab calls Elijah “A troubler of Israel.” Zechariah 1 describes a type of peace that is not due to faithfulness but due to unfaithfulness.   The Apostle Paul is accused of “turning the world upside down.” He too is a disturber of the peace.

So is it time to be an Elijah or a Paul, or is it time to be quiet and patient? How do we accomplish the goals of the kingdom in our station of life? Paul is not a revolutionary, he desires to transform from within. Just as the Spirit comes into a person and crucifies the flesh and brings to life the new man, so those moved by the Spirit transform from within society with deeds of love and mercy. We look to the Spirit to apply the wisdom of scripture in our current situation.

Part of this prudence is in recognizing your situation. If the evil done to you comes from those who are positioned over you, the response is different than to one who is your equal or under you. You owe greater honor and patience to the civil magistrate than to your average citizen because of the nature of their role in society. You will also have a different response as a pastor, plumber, farmer, policeman, or nurse. Each of those comes with varying factors of risk. It also matters whether you have dependents or not. Paul sees the importance of the work of providence in giving us each a different vocation in our lives. That is why he tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 to “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him.”

Another part of that prudence is discerning what you are willing to risk or what hill you are willing to die on. The natural way of the Gentiles is to lord it over one another and we should expect that they will try to lord it over the church as well. The natural way of our hearts is to lord it over one another. Therefore, the first attitude toward the rise of tyranny is one of patience. 

In terms of Covid, which is the apparent reason for writing these articles, I would argue that most Christians responded with patience. Still, beyond initial patience, Christians had different metrics for deciding when civil disobedience was necessary and different understandings of the severity of the pandemic, understandable because of the lack of open conversation about these things in the public square.

Yet even when we decide that it is necessary to ignore government mandates, we must still seek peace with all men as much as possible. That doesn’t mean we can’t be sarcastic or confront the authorities. After all, Christ gives us examples of precisely this type of action. But we must, in all this, prioritize mercy and justice. In all this, we must follow the way of Christ. “Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” “Bless those who curse you,” says the Lord. God gives us this truth generally and this is where prudence and the leading of the Spirit come in. We’ll come to this more in our next article, where we will discuss resisting the government God’s way.

Respectability and the Ministry of Reconciliation

By

On May 11, 2021

In Church, Witness

If you can faithfully keep the Ministry of Reconciliation without any conflict, you are a better missionary than Jesus. If you can obey God without losing respectability in our society, you are a better Christian than Christ. That’s ridiculous! Your Saviour and Lord said, “I send you out as sheep among wolves,” but “fear not, for I am with you even to the end of the age.”

I respond that I may be changed

By

On December 3, 2018

In eschatology, Witness, Worship

The title of this website is respondeo etsi mutabor,  that is, I respond so that I may be changed.  This is a basic philosophical outlook on life: we respond to our parents, to our teachers and so we are formed.  Most importantly we respond to God in faith, hope, and love. He commands and we obey, directed ourselves toward his righteousness.

What about when we don’t know how to respond?  What if all options for action are not options? According to Romans 8, we groan. We groan already because we long for the redemption of our bodies.  However, we groan all the more when we lose the way forward. Further, the Spirit groans with us.  Reason fails.  We are like Hamlet stuck between action and inaction.  So we groan before our God, seeking his wisdom.

Perhaps he changes the situation so that we may move forward in good conscience.  Perhaps he gives new wisdom.  Regardless he changes us.  I groan so that I might be changed.

True Witness is through rejection of identity politics, Part 3

By

On December 27, 2017

In Church, Witness

So how do we deal with identity politics? We speak the truth in love.  To do otherwise is cruelty. This is our witness to Jesus Christ.  It is to recognize that he is the one who defines truth.  He is the one who defines our identity.  When we play about with our identity, we play about with rejecting Jesus Christ.  Ultimately, we play with idolatry.  To promote identities opposed to our God-given identity is idolatry.  This is because we turn ourselves into identity creators when identity is a gift of God.   That is the argument of Toby Sumpter’s blog post that I referenced in my first post on this subject.  In order to give some concreteness to “speaking the truth in love, I want to interact with Toby’s piece.

If you have read Toby Sumpter’s piece, I want to note one disagreement with him.  He argues that using preferred gender pronouns is equivalent to an early Christian offering incense to the emperor. I agree and I disagree. I want to distinguish between two ways of compromising on this point.  To do this I want to point to 1 Corinthians 10.

In 1st Corinthians 10, Paul deals with the issue of food sacrificed to idols.  Paul argues that if you participate in the pagan feasts, you are idolatrous.  This is because you are publicly participating in the altar of a false God.  I would argue on this level, those Christians who publicly compromise on calling an individual a “zer” or a “ze” are offering their pinch of incense.  This is particularly true of the gender-neutral pronouns.  Those who offer their sacrifice of appeasement to the world’s understanding of identity are denying God’s gift of identity to that individual.

But Paul also argues that when you visit somebodies house you may eat the food offered without asking.  It might be sacrificed to idols,  but ultimately God is in control.  But if the person tells you, for the sake of the gospel, do not eat any food sacrificed to idols.  There is an application to identity here.  Treat people as they appear. You are not bowing to the idol of identity. But if somebody asks you to call them a “ze” or a “zer” or if they tell you that they have had a gender-change surgery, do not call them by their preferred pronoun.  You do this for the sake of the gospel, so that they may know God’s desire for their identity.

Witness, then through rejecting identity politics. We could go further, we could talk about all the politics around race.  Here we can be more sensitive.  Race is a natural thing.  The sons of Adam have developed distinctive features in different areas of the world.  Still, we are all sons of Adam, made in the image of God before we are black and white.  Here, again we reject identity politics.  Our witness is through embracing our identity in Christ and encouraging others to appropriate that identity as well.

True Witness is through Rejection of Identity Politics, Part 2

By

On December 26, 2017

In Church, Witness

I want to point out three different ways the world plays identity politics. These three ways are through the rejection of the universal masculine, through the acceptance of nomenclature like “non-straight” Christians, and finally through acceptance of gender-neutral pronouns to refer to individuals.  The first is an older issue.  In the minds of many that particular cause is a lost cause. It’s beginnings were prominent in the last century.  This is the movement away from the use of any type of universal masculine.  To use the universal masculine is to use “man” as a placeholder for both men and women This is a legitimate use of the word “man” in the English language. In its stead, men have used gender-neutral words like “people” or “they.”

Through feminism and individualism, along with the rise of leftism in universities the universal masculine is no longer used.  Feminism argued for equality of men and women in absolutely every respect.  They did not exclude pronouns.  Radical individualism resisted any type of collectivism even in language.  The few who refuse to bend to the dominant grammar are relegated to the sidelines.  This is particularly true in Bible translation.  Yet God chooses to identify man, as a whole, in masculine terms.  He defines man and women, as man, in Genesis 1.  This is not demeaning to women, this is merely because man was created first.

Arguably, this is the beginning of identity politics; a demand for respect for the individuality of members of a group.  There was no room for definition in relation to a whole, the individual, in this case, the individual woman, demands respect. The speaker must recognize her gender.

This is where the insanity began.  For this reason, I choose to be regulated to the sidelines with a couple of others.  I choose to join the dinosaurs. There is a chance to persuade me that God might not appreciate this stand. God wants us to relate to our own society.  We speak in a different language than the Hebrews. We think in a different way than the Hebrews. It’s possible that I sin.   If I do, I do so in ignorance. However, I believe that God will honor this decision. I believe that there is more continuity between Hebrew culture and our own than we like to believe.

My reason: scripture should teach me how to think about gender.   It is not the main goal of scripture.  The main goal of scripture is to teach me about Christ.  but scripture does teach me about my identity and the identity I receive in Christ.

The second way of identity politics is a little more recent. It is the new understanding of the word “homosexual.”  The word used to refer to a condition, a desire or an action, not necessarily a biological identity equivalent to our identity as a man or a woman, or possibly our identity as tall or short. Unfortunately, the evangelical world has begun to talk about “homosexual Christians” as if that is a real possibility. They have accepted the “fact” that the identity of “homosexuality” is equivalent to a gene for tallness or a predisposition to cancer.

But God offers a new identity. That is why it is particularly repugnant to call a Christian a “homosexual” Christian.  We wouldn’t want to call a brother in Christ a Christian “murderer.”  We don’t even need to give into the world on the old identity we have in Adam.  Yes “homosexuality” can be an identity, but it is an identity in the way “miser” or “murderer” or “drunk” is an identity.  It is a problem; a problem that people seriously struggle with, sometimes throughout their whole lives.  But this identity is not grounded in creation.  The identities we gain through the curse and through our sinful desires are no longer ours in Christ.

The final example of identity politics is the most recent.  These are the gender-neutral pronouns, which Jordan Peterson is dealing with. This is also the most extreme case of identity politics.  My comments on this will only repeat what I have already said.  I would only add that this is the clearest and unambiguous case we have so far.  The attempts to nuance this issue fail.

Witness through Rejection of Identity Politics, Part 1

By

On December 20, 2017

In Church, Witness

What does it mean to witness to Jesus Christ? The answer is simple.  It is to confess Jesus.  Christians are ambassadors of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  We do so by announcing that King Jesus rules and calling all men to humble themselves in repentance before him.  We tell them, and we show them, how good it is to live before Christ.  I argue that we cannot use identity politics to witness to Jesus Christ.  Identity Politics rejects the identity that Christ gives us and celebrates the identity that people choose for themselves instead of our God-given identities.

I would add more: we witness to Jesus by confessing the truth that he has taught us.  Even more: we witness to Jesus by delighting in the good law that he gave us. Finally, we witness to Jesus by rejoicing in the identity that he gave us.   That final point is the important point here.  If we rejoice in the identity Christ gave us.  If we accept Scripture’s word on the identity Christ has given both to us and others, we must reject any type of identity politics. This identity includes both the identity that Christ gives us through our creation and through our redemption.

Yet, for evangelicals, it is never so simple.  They cave into identity politics. Identity politics is any movement that demands respect for an identity that is obviously false.   And to see why you need to go no further than the problem Pastor Toby Sumpter deals with here.  The article he is dealing with is here. You can find another article from the gospel coalition that uses the branding “nonstraight Christians” here.  Now Christians are branding themselves according to the categories of the world.

In a strange twist of providence, I believe it is the agnostic Jordan Peterson, who has forced me to deal with this issue head-on.  His courageous stand against using genderfluid pronouns like “zer” and “ze,” for the sake of those who want to use those pronouns has encouraged me to be firm on this issue.  If an agnostic can take a stand for truth out of compassion for the psychologically confused, how much more a Christian, who confesses that they know the mind of Christ. It is wicked and cruel to accept people in this way.  You demonstrate that you accept their identity as they define it.

Of course, you do want to accept the identity men have been given. We accept all men and women as people made in the image of God.  They deserve the dignity that goes with that.    A re-defined identity deserves no respect.  Neither we should give it any respect.  Out of grace, out of mercy, we should hold to the God’s truth.   Even so, one’s true identity continues to deserve respect no matter how far one has perverted one’s self.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén