There is no domain safe from the onslaught of post-modern, far-left ideology, and that includes segments of Christianity, some of which are rushing to embrace, or at the very least, excuse the affirmation of transgenderism.
To be fair, "Christianity Today," which has drawn criticism in the past for its more progressive mindset, didn't necessarily do that in a recently published piece that tackled the topic of "gendered language" (i.e. pronoun usage). What it did do is turn an incredibly simple topic into a far more complicated one than it actually is.
The article opens with the story of Shua Wilmot and Raegan Zelaya, who were fired from Houghton University for refusing to remove their "pronouns" from their official email accounts.
“My name is Shua. It’s an unusual name. And it ends with a vowel, a, that is traditionally feminine in many languages,” Wilmot, whose full first name is Joshua, said in a YouTube interview. “If you get an email from me and you don’t know who I am, you might not know how to gender me.”
Zelaya added in the same interview that she felt removing her pronouns from her email signature would imply that “the students who felt safe by me doing that, the students that felt seen by me doing that” weren’t worth “taking this risk and this stance.”
Furthermore, as Wilmot told ABC News, his views regarding gender and identity do not fully align with the theology of the Wesleyan Church, the sponsoring denomination of Houghton University.
Somewhat, I supremely doubt that Wilmot's concern for how people would view her name was the reason for her plastering her pronouns in her email signature. That's essentially confirmed just a few lines later when it's revealed she didn't agree with the universities teachings on transgenderism. She also felt that listing her pronouns offered a feeling of safety to others.
Does the idea of placating transgender ideology in order to not offend fit within a Christian construct, though? I'd propose it does not. Still, the article paints the situation facing church leaders as precarious and confusing. Take this passage which supposes there is a tension between speaking the truth and showing love in a Biblical sense.
Some Christians distinguish between institutional norms and personal relationships. “Love is due to persons, not to ideologies,” Favale, the Notre Dame scholar, said. In other words, Christians whose consciences are bound by their convictions might choose to show love by using friends’ self-identified pronouns yet resist providing their own pronouns on an institutional level through civil disobedience or silence.
In his letters, the apostle John emphasizes the Christian commands to follow the truth and to walk in love. In the Christian life, these theological truths are woven in constant tension. Problems arise when one exists without the other.
Where is this tension being asserted? Because I can't find it. In what part of the Bible do we see Jesus affirm sinful behavior as he's speaking against it? Did he encourage the woman at the well to keep sleeping around until he's able to invest enough time in her to show her the truth of righteousness? Of course, he didn't.
There is no tension between truth and love because telling the truth is an act of love. There is absolutely nothing wrong with befriending a transgender person and being kind to them while speaking the truth. In fact, as followers of Christ, we are all called to do just that. That is not the same thing as actively affirming sin, though, and by using "preferred pronouns," that is exactly what is being done.
The article attempts to argue against that viewpoint by suggesting such a black-and-white approach could push some people away from God. While I wouldn't want that to happen, there are always going to be lines in the sand that cause people to retreat into their sinful nature. We saw that over and over throughout Jesus' interactions on earth, and the scripture makes it abundantly clear that many people will turn and walk away when presented with the Gospel.
So again, what exactly is so complicated here? Still, "Christianity Today" supposes that the Bible doesn't offer clear answers, and thus, leaves room for compromise.
The Scriptures do not offer specific answers for every situation, but they do give us general principles and truths underscoring the inherent dignity of every person and our need for godly wisdom found through the Spirit, the Bible, and the church.
“It takes a prayer-soaked, discerning response and ambassadorship in my neighborhood, work setting, and relationships,” Yarhouse said. “I wouldn’t want to reduce my ambassadorship to a pronoun.”
That's simply not correct. The Bible does offer clear answers even if it doesn't offer a specific, line-by-line command for how to handle every single situation imaginable. There is no ambiguity about sex and gender in the Word of God. There is also no ambiguity among Jesus' teachings about how sin should be confronted.
Yes, we should be loving, understanding, and compassionate in our dealings, but we should never let that slip into affirming sin out of some misguided notion that doing so will draw that person to Christian belief. The truth remains the truth no matter how insane modern dogmas become, and if a point is reached where the truth causes someone to turn away, that is for God to deal with, not Christian leaders.
