Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

The Surprising Way Tinkerbell Shows the Flaw in the Transgender Identity Crisis

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

I know what you might be thinking. “Tinkerbell, Melissa? Seriously?” But stay with me here. The pre-woke movie era had some good stuff in it that’s surprisingly relevant and counter-cultural by 2023 standards.

Tinkerbell (2008)

So first, here is a brief movie synopsis for those who may not have seen the movie: The first Tinkerbell movie was made in 2008. The story starts with Tinkerbell as a new fairy. She was a fairy who was born a certain way, as what’s called a tinker fairy, where she “tinkers” with things to build them. But she hates it. The main setting is in a magical place in Neverland called Pixie Hollow where there are other “talents” that other fairies have, such as water, animal, light, wind, or flower fairies. She struggles with who she is as a tinker fairy and who she wants to be, especially after finding out that tinker fairies don’t get to go to the Mainland for spring. She wants to be anything but a tinker fairy. She refused to accept the truth that this was actually who she was and instead stubbornly embraced her truth.

The entire movie is about her trying to be every other fairy type, anything other than who she was born to be. Her supportive friends knew she was a tinker and tried to tell her many times that this was who she was. Good for them. At the end of the movie, she finally accepts that she shouldn’t deny her true identity by trying to be something she’s not. She ends up happily embracing being a tinker fairy.

The Truth About Tinkerbell

I’m sure you already know what I’m getting at. The parallel to today’s identity crisis are clear, and quite the opposite message from this movie: you can’t change the truth to your truth.

Let me say this. First, I feel for those who struggle with their identity. There’s a deep and intense struggle to change who we are to be accepted by others or seen how we want to be seen. But there’s freedom in loving how God made you. And I mean how he actually made you. What I mean by that is some people might say, “But God made me with this identity! I didn’t choose to be a man in a woman’s body, or this race, or even this species!” I want to lovingly counter this idea with these questions:

Says who?

Where did you get that idea from?

By what standard are you measuring that this is God’s will for your life and how He made you?

If God has revealed Himself, He did so in the person of Jesus. I didn’t make this claim. Jesus did. If Jesus is who He says He is, then how would we find out information about Him? Here’s the answer: The Bible. People that walked and talked with Jesus and witnessed His life, resurrection, and miracles recorded them, then died horrendous deaths, never denying any of it was false. In other words, if Jesus is everything He says He is, I trust the Book that tells me who He is and what He taught, and what He commanded His disciples to do and teach.

Identity in Christ

And what He says about how you are made matters when it comes to this topic: you were born one way, but He says to be born another way. He says to be born again.

“Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.’” John 3:3 (NIV)

He wants you to find your identity in Him, not yourself. He wants you to love who He is and how He made you, not make a God in your own image that likes what you like and loves what you love. Jesus came for you too and says that He is the bread of life. What He’s saying is that this world will not satisfy, and looking within isn’t sustainable. He’s the standard for what’s good, true, and fulfilling.

A Lesson from American Idol

On a harder-to-accept level, people living “their truth” can sometimes look forced and awkward. Like someone trying to be something we all know they aren’t. It reminds me of one of those American Idol auditions where someone goes in thinking they’re a fantastic singer because everyone around them was telling them they were a great singer. But they open their mouth, and it’s total cringe. What’s stunning is their denying the fact that they are an objectively bad singer. Perhaps the people around them were afraid to tell the truth because the person was too sensitive or emotionally fragile to handle tough feedback. Everyone knew they weren’t a star. But everyone went along with it, perhaps out of fear. I see the same principle when it comes to today’s identity crisis.

Now isn’t it interesting, and rather ironic, that we live in a world that says self-love is the battle cry of the day but then the same instigators want you to deny everything about who you are for a fleeting feeling that changes? There’s wisdom in accepting yourself for who you are, not denying it to fill a void.

5 Fatal Flaws in Transgender Ideology

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Many people who support transgender surgery and cross-sex hormones may be well-intentioned, but the transgender ideology behind those intentions is fraught with fatal flaws. Here are just five of many. Contrary to transgender ideology:

1. The Design of the Body Proves There are Only Two Genders

Transgender advocates insist there are multiple genders. However, the design of the human body shows there are only two genders. Humans can either produce sperm or eggs. There is no third reproductive output in humans or mammals. Of course, there are humans who cannot produce either due to biological deficiencies, but that is an incapacity, not a thirdcapacity to produce something else. Thus, the claim that there are more than two genders can only be entertained if one detaches the concept of gender from biological sex.

However, insisting that gender is completely different from someone’s biological sex doesn’t work either. If gender and biology were completely different things — if there’s no relationship between the two — then why would anyone advocate for cross-sex hormones or sex change operations? Which leads us to flaw two.

2. Transgenderism Must Presuppose Fixed Genders

While transgender advocates deny that there are only two genders, they must unwittingly presuppose two genders for transgenderism to be possible. Why? Because if I’m a biological man but think I’m a woman, I must have some idea of what a man and woman are to recognize my problem. I must also know what a man and woman are to make the so-called “transition.” If genders are completely fluid with no fixed reference points, there would be no way to recognize the mismatch between my biology and psychology and no destination for my transition. In other words, “gender dysphoria” could not exist without two known, fixed genders.

The denial of fixed genders has sparked a bit of a civil war among some identifying as LGBTQ, because if the T’s get their way, the L’s, G’s, and B’s don’t exist (search for #LGBminustheT). How can one be lesbian, gay, or bisexual if there are no fixed genders? Each of those identities rely on fixed genders. Likewise, some feminists are unhappy because, without fixed genders, there are no women and therefore no women’s rights.

This is one reason why Matt Walsh’s documentary, “What is a Woman?,” has so many transgender advocates and Leftwing academics stumped by the question, “What is a woman?” They are caught in a dilemma. If they say a woman is a biological female, then transgender ideology is false. If they refuse to define a woman, transgenderism is not possible. Who is transitioning to what? And what happened to women’s rights?

3. You Can Change Your Mind But Not Your Biology

When biology and psychology are mismatched, why do we think changing the body instead of changing the mind is the way to fix the problem? We don’t do this for other conditions.

When anorexics falsely think they are overweight, we don’t say, “You’re right. Let me get you some liposuction.” For people who honestly believe they should have healthy limbs cut off (a condition known as “trans-abled”), we don’t say, “You’re right. If you think you should not have a right arm, we will cut if off for you.” When your daughter insists she’s a mermaid, you don’t take her off the coast and drop her in the ocean. So, why do we think we should cut off healthy sex organs instead of helping people change their minds?

While you can change your mind, it is literally impossible to change your biology. You can mutilate your body, but you cannot change the DNA of your 100 trillion cells or the many thousands of biological differences between men and women.

Any attempt to “transition” between the sexes implicitly admits these differences and affirms the binary nature of gender. Otherwise, there would be no use for hormones or puberty blockers. In fact, if there were no differences in the physical and biological designs of men and women, transgenderism would not only be impossible but unnecessary. If men and women were the same, there would be no need or desire to transition. So instead of me thinking I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body, why not think I’m a man with a woman’s mind? That way I can actually fix my problem with good mental health care.

4. Sex Is Not Assigned At Birth

For transgender ideology to succeed, people must come to believe that gender is arbitrary and is “assigned” at birth. But everyone knows that gender is not “assigned” at birth — it is discovered at birth (or sometimes before). It’s not like people vote at gender-reveal parties, or that doctors arbitrarily decide the sex of a newborn. No, they discover and state the baby’s sex because there is no ambiguity.

In the extremely rare cases where genitals are ambiguous (intersex), tests are done and choices are made to correct the problem. Most patients end up male or female rather than assuming a non-binary status. This is not the same as transgenderism where people with fully formed and healthy sexual organs attempt to transition to the opposite sex. Intersex is a biological condition; gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. The existence of intersex conditions does nothing to support the claim that sex is “assigned” at birth. Birth defects do not disprove the norm. In fact, they would be impossible to identify without the norm.

We live in a fallen world. All of us are born with deficiencies and defects. That doesn’t mean we are less human or less worthy of respect. But that also doesn’t mean we should mandate that everyone else live according to such deficiencies or defects. When someone is born deaf, we don’t tell the rest of the world they can never speak or listen to music because it might offend the deaf. Yet that is precisely what transgender activists and the rest of the woke world are trying to impose on our entire society.

5. There is No Basis for Transgender Rights

We seem to be inventing new “rights” in America every 10 minutes. But where do rights come from? They can’t come from the government because a right is something you have regardless of what anyone else says about it (including your government). Rights can only come from God (“our Creator” as the Declaration of Independence puts it). Without God, every moral issue is reduced to a matter of opinion.

What evidence do we have that God wants anyone to amputate perfectly healthy sex organs? There is none from natural law, the Bible, or any other supposed revelation that claims to come from God.

People can demand that their government legislate or declare certain behaviors as “rights,” but that doesn’t make them rights any more than a government can legislate that a biological man is a woman. That doesn’t make him a woman. Instead of trying to change reality to fit our thoughts, we should be trying to change our thoughts to fit reality. As I document in the new third edition of Correct Not Politically Correct (from which this column is adapted), there are several more fatal flaws in transgender ideology, including the evidence showing that transitioning doesn’t fix the underlying problem. But that’s for the next column.

Can Moral Guilt Feelings Ever Be Objective?

Atheism, Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bobby Conway

The feeling of moral guilt is a universal experience – that inward gnaw or inner ouch that we have done something wrong. It is that feeling a line has been crossed, a law has been broken, which leaves one wondering if we are genuinely guilty. But are these feelings just that—feelings? A mere subjective experience? A cognitive disrupt? A snafu?

**Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?**

Well, that depends. A person can feel guilty and not be guilty, i.e., pseudo guilt, while a person can also be guilty and not feel guilty. This may be the result of an anesthetized conscience, one’s moral ignorance, some level of psychopathy, or whatever the case may be. In the event we feel guilty, how can we know if our feelings are objective? The answer is surprisingly simple. We should look for a corresponding link between our feelings of guilt and our moral actions. For example, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a local bank that he never did, then he’s not experiencing objective guilt, but from a bad case of pseudo guilt. However, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a bank because he did, then his feelings of guilt are objective in that his feelings correspond to reality. In other words, there’s a corresponding link. An objective match. The reason Steve feels guilty is because he is guilty.

Unfortunately, some people wrongly relegate our feelings to the subjective department, while claiming only reason is objectively dependable. That’s not only wrong. It’s naïve, really naïve.

Just as our reason can provide logically informative thoughts that are either true or false, objective, or subjective, so to our feelings can provide emotionally informative thoughts that are also either true or false, objective, or subjective. Therefore, it’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

It’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

Feelings Aren’t All Bad

While our feelings certainly can mislead us, they also have the capacity to capture our attention and rightfully so. And this is especially true relating to feelings of guilt. From the Christian worldview perspective, our feelings of guilt are God’s way of grabbing our attention. Like a check engine light, these feelings are meant to alert us to the objective fact that we have failed to make good on our moral obligations. That we have offended our Moral Lawgiver. That we have fractured our relationship with him and need moral repair. But fortunately, God has not left us without a remedy. There’s a way to unload our guilt. And that way is through Christ. Via his atonement, believers can both acknowledge their moral trespass and ask for forgiveness and subsequently experience both forgiveness for their objectively morally guilty action, while also expecting to have their feelings of guilt soothed on account of Christ’s atoning love and grace.

A Christian Apologist Responds to Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Satanic Grammy Performance

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

If you watched the 2023 Grammys, then you probably saw Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s blasphemous pop hypnotic hit “Unholy.” This song has been buzzing. It has more than a hundred million views and earned a Grammy for “Best Pop Duo/Group Performance.”

Musically, it feels a bit like R&B meets belly dancing. Its Middle Eastern lilt and thumping rhythm lend a dark allure, as the lyrics spin a sordid tale of excess and adultery. One philandering husband neglects his wife and kids at home, sneaking out to a gender-bending strip club — “Body Shop.” Sung from the perspectives of the club’s prostitutes, the story is laced with luxury name brands, product shots for condoms, and vivid descriptions of sexual deviance.

Visually, the music video and live Grammy performance portray a kind of satanic drag cabaret, with the lead singers Sam Smith and Kim Petras as Satan and a stripper, respectively. In the video, the “Body Shop” translates into a speak-easy strip club in the backroom of an auto-body garage. The dancers crowding and piling on top of each other rub and writhe in ecstasy.

Allusions to kink and orgies abound. The story ends with the husband dying for his sins in a car crash, as the wife sheds her coat and wig to reveal she’s really a male stripper. At the Grammys, the story is streamlined. Kim Petras swoons and sings in a stripper cage. Pyrotechnics and red lighting create a hellish ambiance, as gender-bending demon dancers worship a devil-horned Sam Smith. This song has all the subtly of a jet engine.

Scrolling through social media, one can see a predictable partisan divide. Right wing pundits aired their grievances (rightfully so), as the left sang its praises, making sure to point out that Sam Smith is gay and gender queer, and Kim Petras is a transgender woman (male identifying as a woman).[i]

What should we make of this megahit?

With all the hype surrounding this song, it invites critique from several angles. We’ll consider some of the more obvious ones here. First, we’ll ask whether this is just an elaborate marketing ploy. Second, we’ll address whether it’s just art. Third, we’ll ask whether it’s satanic. In answering those three questions, we’ll cover a fourth angle, LGBTQ ideology. Lastly, we’ll ask what wisdom we can glean from this song. It’s clearly not just a song. It’s a symbol, perhaps even an anthem. And we do well not to downplay or exaggerate it. Instead, we can practice discernment and draw from it ministry insights into our cultural milieu.

Is this just a marketing ploy?

Behind the garish lights and red leather, it’s easy to see the machinations of marketing strategists. It has the feel of choreographed controversy, like a well-rehearsed dance number between left-wing libertines and right-wing moralists.

It’s been said that “all publicity, is good publicity.” By that measure, this song does not disappoint. It’s obviously meant to offend. It displays fire shows, hellish lighting, gender-bending kink, and burlesque aesthetics. But more than that, it’s blasphemy. The dance numbers are choreographed sexcapades punctuated by the Catholic sign of the cross (i.e., crossing oneself). This gesture connotes a blasphemous kind of sexual sacrament.

It would be too simplistic to dismiss this song as a gimmick, as mere shock-value. Sure, controversy draws crowds, but this song is more than that. It’s not just offensive. It’s transgressive. It’s an affront to Christianity, traditional marriage, monogamy, binary gender, heteronormativity, chastity, modesty. And it does all that with a wink and a smirk. They know what they’re doing. It’s supposed to upset people like you and me. It’s supposed to drive us to anger-blogging on social media, giving it free publicity at our expense. Meanwhile, we come off looking like puritanical luddites with no taste in music.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that marketing strategy is well underway. I just don’t think this song is reducible entirely to a marketing ploy. We cannot say it’s just orchestrated outrage, because if that’s all they wanted, they could have gotten a bigger response by putting Sam Smith in blackface with Kim Petras in a MAGA hat. Now that would have taken some real courage!

The point isn’t merely to offend. It’s to offend the right people. That is, offend the people on the right. “Unholy” is strategically marketed to offend the right people by celebrating irreverence, sex-positivity, and LGBTQ practice.[ii]

Is it just art?

Whatever else this song may be, it’s still art. And that might be its strongest defense. For those who see this song as a defiant strike against oppression and moral busybodies, this song sounds like artful indignation.

Historically speaking, music has often been a fulcrum for toppling authority and transgressing boundaries. Who can think of the Civil Rights Movement without the resonant refrain of “We Shall Overcome”? Or think of women’s equality without hearing Aretha Franklin demand “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.” (1967)? Communist Russia and East Berlin undoubtedly took a hit from the punk rock movement in the 1970’s and ’80’s. I like to think that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 to the tune of “We’re Not Gonna Take it!” (Twisted Sister, 1984). We could likewise note the cultural sway in Elvis’s hips, Liberace’s hats, Mick Jagger’s lips, and Ozzy’s bats. Music, if nothing else, is powerful. It has a long history of deliberately breaking cultural norms, for good or ill.

In that vein Sam Smith and Kim Petras are nothing new. They are challenging moral norms about marriage, family, and gender identity, and they’re framing it as an anti-religious dig at Christian conservatives. The question remains, however, is all that justified in the name of art?

That “art defense” might go something like this:

Premise 1: Art can be a justified way to break cultural mores.

Premise 2: This song is art.

Conclusion: Therefore, this song is justified in breaking cultural mores.

I won’t dispute premises one and two. I don’t need to. The argument is invalid. It has an undistributed middle term. Simply put, neither premise is talking about all art. “Art” is the undistributed term here. We can explain this fallacy with a question distributing the middle term: Is everything done in the name of art justified?

Clearly no. Art doesn’t justify murder, or rape, or animal sacrifice. Evil is still evil, even in artistic form. The same is true of misdemeanors and “poor taste.” Imagine if Smith and Petras used this song to come out as “trans-Black,” or to celebrate Christopher Columbus, or came out as pro-life? It’s hard to imagine their progressive supporters still saying, “It’s just art!”

In reality, this song was never just art. It’s also marketing, fashion, entertainment, and culture. It’s a commentary on family, identity, sexual ethics, and religion. And it’s a socio-political statement endorsing the LGBTQ movement. Sam Smith leaves no question about that. Speaking of his[iii] experience in this song, he says he felt “courageous to step into the queer joy of it all,” and “[i]t feels like emotional, sexual, and spiritual liberation.”[iv] The rest of the album (Gloria, 2023) reinforces that message. Yes, that messaging is framed in a piece of music. So, it can be artfully indirect. But the message still comes across loud and clear.

Is it Satanic?

If you’re thinking this is what Satanism looks like, however, you’re only half right. “Unholy” clearly uses hellish satanic imagery, but compared to modern-day Satanism, it’s a cartoon. The main streams of Satanism today deny the existence of any literal devil.[v] They’re atheistic. They deny any supernatural realm, along with all gods, angels, demons, and devils. Satanists today are more likely to be edgy, humanistic, liberal activists, with a serious authority complex.[vi] So it’s no surprise when the Satanists said of the Grammy performance, it was “alright,” “nothing particularly special,” and “red clothing, fire and devil horns…[are] all kind of passé now.”[vii]

But “Unholy” doesn’t need formal ties to Satanism to reflect the essence of Satanism, namely, radical autonomy.[viii] Variously identified with “self-determinism,” “pleasure-seeking,” the “left-hand path,” or even the “Witch’s Rede” (Do what thou wilt), this radical autonomy is the beating heart of Satanism. As one source explains, “Satanists emphasize being your true self, personal achievement and living life to the fullest….with one of the key [tenets] being individuals are their own Gods.”[ix] In that way, Smith and Petra’s “Unholy” is satanic. It’s just not unique, since Satanism absorbs almost the entire pop music industry.

What wisdom can we glean from “Unholy”?

“There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9),[x] and “Unholy” is no exception. We do well to expect incendiary ploys, sexual depravity, and even blasphemy from the entertainment industry. St. Peter foresees in the first century that “many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed…Those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority… have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed” (2 Peter 2:2,10,14).

Since we know it’s coming, we can “brace for impact.” We can be prepared. That may be as simple as turning the channel, skipping a track, or just unplugging. Most everyone could benefit from more classical music and less screen time. Avoidance isn’t everything. But it is an important step toward a deliberate discerning approach to media. We can’t afford to be passive recipients, swallowing whatever is fed to us.

Sometimes we need a media fast. Maybe get rid of your TV. Or unsubscribe from a music or streaming service. Or maybe avoid genres of music or shows that, for the most part, aren’t glorifying God. The rest of the time, when we’re not fasting, we should still be dieting. The bewildering mass of trash and distraction doesn’t deserve near as much attention as we give it.[xi] Our money, time, and attention are all votes of support. So, we do well to support only those causes that we believe in.

But what about Sam Smith and Kim Petras?

Those mega stars are probably not in your immediate sphere of influence. They aren’t likely your “neighbors” in that sense. We can still pray for them. If we love like Christ, we can find encouraging truths to say about them. We shouldn’t mock or insult them. They’re created in God’s image just like you and me (Gen 1:26–28). Even when we criticize their behavior, beliefs, or their music, we should still speak from a position of love and compassion.

Meanwhile, we have an abiding responsibility to live and love like Christ in our home and our communities and to guard our hearts (Prov. 4:23; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 5; Titus 2). Guarding our hearts includes handling music and other media with the discernment of a dietician. To use St. Paul’s language, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil 4:8).

Footnotes

[i] Curtis M. Wong, “Sam Smith and Kim Petras Take Grammys to Hell with Fiery Performance of ‘Unholy,’ HuffPost Entertainment, February 5, 2023, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sam-smith-kim-petras-grammys-2023-unholy-performance_n_63e06afae4b01a4363956e2a; “Satanic Smith: Watch Pop Singer Go Full Satan During Grammy Performance,” Sean Hannity, February 6, 2023, https://hannity.com/media-room/satanic-smith-watch-pop-singer-go-full-satan-during-grammy-performance/; Derrick Clifton, “Sam Smith’s They/Them Pronoun Backlash Highlights an Ongoing Cultural Disconnect,” Think, September 19, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/sam-smith-s-they-them-pronoun-backlash-highlights-ongoing-cultural-ncna1056136.

[ii] “Sex positivity” is defined as a permissive and nonjudgmental attitude toward all consensual sexual expression and sexual behaviors, regarding all of it as healthy. For more on this, see Hillary Ferrer and Amy Davison, Mama Bear Apologetics: Guide to Sexuality (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2021), 131–48.

[iii] Sam Smith identifies with “they/them” pronouns. Sophie Lewis, “Sam Smith Announces Their Pronouns,” CBS News, September 13. 2019, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sam-smith-pronouns-sam-smith-announces-their-pronouns-are-they-them-2019-09-13/. With no disrespect intended, I refer to Smith in conventional “he/him” pronouns for the sake of clarity. Being an individual biological male, Smith is not a biologically neutral plurality as suggested by “they/them” pronouns.

[iv] Lea Veloso, “Unholy’ by Sam Smith and Kim Petras Lyrics Are ‘Liberating’ — Here’s How They Explore ‘Queer Joy,’” Stylecaster, February 5, 2023, accessed February 8, 2023 at https://stylecaster.com/unholy-sam-smith-kim-petras-lyrics/.

[v] See “Church of Satan vs. Satanic Temple,” The Satanic Temple (c.2014), accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-temple.

[vi] I explain this characterization in greater length in “Satanic Lessons on Religious Freedom: A Review of Hail Satan?” Christian Research Journal, October 28, 2019 at https://www.equip.org/articles/satanic-lessons-on-religious-freedom/.

[vii] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ, February 8, 2023, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.tmz.com/2023/02/08/sam-smith-kim-petras-unholy-grammy-performance-church-satan-underwhelmed/.

[viii] “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple (2014), tenets 3-4, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us.

[ix] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ (8 Feb 2023).

[x] All Scripture quotations are from the ESV.

[xi] I discuss a lot of examples in John D. Ferrer, “Sabrina the Teenage Anti-Christ,” Christian Research Journal, July 11, 2019 at: https://www.equip.org/articles/sabrina-the-teenage-anti-christ/.

Satan at the Grammy’s?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

J.R. Klein (Josh Klein)

The Grammy’s have long been a cultural symbol of transgression. The goal of the Grammy’s used to be to celebrate the best music artists in the world. It was an awards night. Or, at least, it used to be.

They have always been edgy and culturally progressive. For instance, in 1973 Helen Reddy thanked God for her award but referred to God as “she” while doing so.[i] The secular entertainment industry lends itself to this sort of subversive rhetoric.

But recently the Grammy’s have become more than a shocking cultural display while recognizing the best secular artists of the day. Long before 2023’s shocking performance by Sam Smith and Kim Petras[ii], they had shifted from shocking and transgressive to lewd and Satanic.

This is not a conspiratorial statement. You will hear no talk of Illuminati, MK Ultra, or Demon possession here, but what the Grammy’s has become, whether the people who are involved realize it or not, is a worship service to deeds of darkness and even Satan himself. This slide may have been overtly realized in 2023, but elements of Satanic worship have made their way into the Grammy’s for decades.

First, I want to explain what I mean by Satanic. I do not mean Occult, or the literal worship of Satan. There were, as far as I am aware, no literal virgin sacrifices or summoning of demons on February 5th. What I do mean is an unwitting plunge into the darkness of which the performers, actors, and producers are barely aware. As they dance in overtly Satanic gear they think they are shedding light on darkness through mockery, but they accomplish the opposite and open themselves up to demonic influence in the process.

Judge less, love more, they say,[iii] but love means affirmation in this realm. Reality pushes pack, love cannot affirm untruth.[iv]

I don't know who needs to hear this… But the Grammy's has been home to satanic rituals for years now, they're just bolder now.

— J.R. Klein (@JoshRKlein) February 7, 2023

The best trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the culture that he either does not exist or that following his ideals leads to power and pleasure without limits. Satan’s goal is not to be worshipped. He is not interested in that. His goal is simply to stop the worship of the one true God and destroy what is good. It could look overt, like it did on February 5^th, or, more often, it looks normal – the choice to commit to a sport over church, the choice to pursue a career at the expense of your marriage. Satan was once an angel of light, he understands how to deceive, but once the culture has bought the covert deceptions he will move in for the kill.

In John 10:10 Jesus gives us a behind the scenes look at Satan’s goals. He comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. A performance need not be invoking Satanic worship or summoning Demons to be considered a Satanic ritual – it need only be a full embrace of darkness, theft of light, death of good, and destruction of holiness.

Sam Smith’s performance accomplished all three in a single song. He declares darkness light, he mocks God’s created order (declaring himself as non-binary, and his co-performer is transgender), and he destroys holiness with a full-on plunge into radical self-autonomy and pleasure. The song he performs is literally entitled Unholy. It glorifies infidelity and promiscuity.

Once we recognize that Satanism, according to its forefathers Aleister Crowley and Anton Lavey, is not merely the worship of Satan, but first and foremost the worship of self we can begin to understand the influence it has had on the entertainment industry.

Perhaps another time we can do a deep dive into the history of both Crowley and Lavey, but suffice it to say that the modern Satanic movements are built on their ideology. Crowley was a much more religious figure than Lavey. Lavey[v] sought to popularize Satanism by tying it to an atheistic framework, Crowley[vi], on the other hand, bought into the spiritual realm. One strand of thought that extending from Crowley to influence the Laveyan popularization[vii] of Satanism, however, was a quote from Crowley himself, “Do What Thou Wilt.”[viii]

Lavey would often scoff at the idea that his group worshiped a literal Satan (as would Crowley to some degree) but that the Church of Satan stood for what Satan symbolized in Paradise Lost. A 17^th century poem by John Milton[ix]. Radical self-autonomy, including the ability to choose what is right and wrong rather than simply to recognize the difference between right and wrong, stood at the heart of Laveyan Satanism.

The irony of the Satanic church is, while their Satanic worship is supposedly tongue-in-cheek, their worship of self and desire to choose for themselves what is right and wrong is, in fact, the very same thing Satan used in the garden to entice Eve. In essence, they worship the literal Satan without even realizing that is what they are doing, and Satan would have it no other way.

So, what does this have to do with the Grammy’s?

Within the backdrop of this form of Satanism we find the rise of the modern entertainment industry. The worship of self-gratification and self-actualization transgresses the Christian belief of self-sacrifice and holy living (Matthew 16; Rom. 12, Col. 3:5-10). Whether intentional or not, the worship of self leads to deeds of darkness and the glorification thereof.

One need not perform a literal Black Mass to worship the Devil. Simply look in the mirror and whisper, “I am a god.”

The Grammy’s, in that sense, have been a bastion of Satanic ritual for decades. Hedonism, Paganism, and Satanism are mostly all sides of the same coin and rewards season in Hollywood, specifically the Grammy’s, has become a once-a-year ritual of worship that slips from naturalism to hedonism to Satanism in the blink of an eye.

But don’t take my word for it, CBS allegedly tweeted as much before the Grammy’s:

Gotta love @CBS openly admitting that they, alongside Sam Smith, "WORSHIP" (their words, not mine) the devil… #GRAMMYs pic.twitter.com/IDtb7O5ruX

— Shawn Farash (@Shawn_Farash) February 6, 2023

How quickly we forget that the last ten years have seen a steady increase of Satanic boldness at the Grammy’s. Smith’s performance was not new or edgy, it was simply more in a pattern of self-worship from the power brokers of the entertainment industry.

In 2012, Nicki Manaj performed a mock exorcism on stage[x]. The Washington Post was shocked. But the Post lauded Smith and Petras’ performance of Unholy only a decade later[xi] as one of the top four performances of the night.

In 2014, Katy Perry performed an enigmatic and dark song called Dark Horse. In the song she emerged from a crystal ball with shadowy figures summoning her to a black altar when a red cross appeared on her chest, she danced with a broom and ended the performance being burnt at the stake.[xii] Seemed a bit on the nose at the time, but 2023 takes the cake in that regard. This same year the Grammy’s held a mass “wedding ceremony” for gay couples as well, explicitly mocking a church service in the process[xiii].

In 2015, Madonna (who also introduced Smith in 2023) performed a song called Living for Love with background dancers clad in demonic garb[xiv].

In 2017, A pregnant Beyoncé performed what looked like an ode to her goddess-self giving birth to a child. But, again, you do not have to take my word for it[xv].

In 2019, a metal band called Ghost won a Grammy. The band is known for its Satanic imagery. Its lead man often dons clothing associated with the Occult and riddled with references to Satan, darkness, upside down crosses and demonic imagery[xvi]. Leading man Tobias Forge says this of their message:

“I think it’s sad that people are wasting their time thinking that we’re bad for people, when actually what we’re really trying to do is make people happy and make people feel good about themselves when they come to our show and have a good time.”

Do what thou wilt, one might say.

2021 and 2022 had similarly eerie performances, one by Post Malone[xvii] in which he was surrounded by darkly hooded monks as he wrestled with the hopelessness he felt in Hollywood’s grips and one by Lil Nas X who performed his song Montero that featured a lap dance on the devil in the music video.

These odes to darkness are not outright Wiccan ritual or Occult sacrifices, but they can often stand in for something just as insidious and more subversive. The point is the destruction of norms, reclaiming of a new morality, and recasting of darkness disguised as light. Make no mistake – the Devil smiles at such displays, not because he is worshipped but because that which is being worshipped is not, in fact, the one true God.

This brings us to the most recent spectacle. At the 2023 Grammy’s, self-proclaimed non-binary performer Sam Smith and transgender performer Kim Petras combined to present the most brazen tribute to modern day Satanism to date, with their presentation of the song Unholy.

Kim (born Tim), a transgender woman who had gender reassignment surgery at the age of 16[xviii] writhed around in a cage guarded by demonic strippers while Sam Smith gyrated with and performed with transgender strippers dressed in demonic costumes. The whole display lacked subtlety and imagination. You were seeing, in full display, a desire to embrace darkness for the very fact that reality is offensive to our fleshly desires. We can make our own reality, where gender is a matter of opinion and sexes can change through the miracle of modern medicine. We can choose for ourselves what is good and what is evil and be damned if you disagree.

Petras had this to say about the performance:

“I think a lot of people, honestly, have kind of labeled what I stand for and what Sam stands for as religiously not cool, and I personally grew up wondering about religion and wanting to be a part of it but slowly realizing it didn’t want me to be a part of it… So it’s a take on not being able to choose religion. And not being able to live the way that people might want you to live, because as a trans person I’m already not kind of wanted in religion. So we were doing a take on that and I was kind of hell-keeper Kim.”[xix]

There is a lot to break down in this quote. It gives a glimpse into the slippery slope from individual autonomy to the embrace of evil itself. At first glance one might empathize with the apparent ostracization of Petras, but the admission here is not that religion would not have him, it is that he would not have religion. Whatever god Petras would willingly serve must first bend the knee at his own self-actualization.

The Christian life, though, is about dying to self and rising with Christ, remade, a new creation (Matt. 16:24-26, Rom 12:1-3; 1 Cor. 6:19-20) and being transformed into obedience to truth which is Jesus himself. The problem was not that Kim could not choose religion, it is that religion, Christianity in particular, required a change in identity for Kim. It meant not looking inward for validation hope, or truth but looking upward.

Ironically, Kim’s own performance shows the truth of his commitment, the self-actualization into radical autonomy left him writhing in a cage, unfree, trapped in Hell. What promises as freedom is bondage but what looks like constraint is freedom (John 8:32; 10:10). Had Kim or Sam chosen Jesus they might find that they would not need to seek applause and shock to remain relevant, whole and fulfilled. Our culture’s promise that sexual pleasure is the highest pursuit, and victimhood the highest virtue only leads to hopelessness and irrelevance.

Is it worth it in the long run?

“Age does not matter to me… I’m never going to stop fully clubbing and loving gay clubs and going to them. That’s just who I am.”[xx]

Kim Petras

But what about when age does matter? What about when the fame fades? What then?

If the Enemy can keep us focused on the here and now rather than the there and then he has won half the battle. This game is endless, exhausting, and boring all at the same time. Always having to look for the next shocking display, the next transgressive cause to burn down the norms of history. It seems like a high calling because of the cultural plaudits, but it is meaningless and empty of value. There’s a reason Madonna, at 64, can’t let go of her 1980s self and must always insert herself into these moments.

The culture of transgression is fleeting, being a sex symbol only lasts for a few years before you are cast aside for the next and hottest new thing. The worship of self, pleasure, and identity only gives meaning for a short time, but it is long enough to waste a lifetime. Satan knows this and his desire to amplify this meaningless self-worship has eternal consequences.

So, what is the Christian’s response to things like this?

First, I believe our role is to expose the darkness for what it is (John 1:5) and to avoid loving what it stands for (1 John 2:15) but we must also pray for those that are mired in it to be exposed to the light. May they find true hope, peace, and purpose. I do not hate Sam Smith or Kim Petras, on the contrary, I love them deeply. I want them to know and understand the deep and abiding love that Christ has for them. I want them to experience a rest from their pursuit of relevance, acceptance, fame, and pleasure.

Our goal should be similar to what Jesus revealed to Paul as he was sent among the hedonistic and pagan nations of the gentiles:

“…To open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me (Acts:26:18).”

We must recognize, as Paul did, that the world is, whether they realize it or not, under the power of Satan. This sort of darkness, this worship of self, certainly opens individuals and cultures up to the influence of the spiritual realm. Satan is the prince of this world (Eph. 2:1-2) and they serve him whether they realize it or not. The enemy, however, is not Sam Smith or Kim Petras but the dark and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12).

We cannot be naïve about these things, but we also must not overreact out of fear either. We must be sober-minded and watchful (1 Peter 5:8) prepared to engage with the boldness of love and truth.

In the end though, we must remember that Satan’s greatest weapon against the church is not a dark cultural display at the Grammy’s but in false gospels, fear, and ineffectiveness. So while we ought to be aware of these things, we should be more concerned about our own churches, neighborhoods, and Bible studies lest we get distracted by things like the Grammy’s at the expense of real and true discipleship.

Footnotes

[i] https://www.insider.com/most-shocking-moments-grammys-history#long-before-ariana-grande-sang-god-is-a-woman-helen-reddy-made-that-proclamation-during-her-1973-acceptance-speech-1

[ii] https://variety.com/2023/music/news/sam-smith-kim-petras-unholy-grammys-1235510990/

[iii] https://www.billboard.com/music/awards/kim-petras-2023-grammys-judge-less-speech-1235213820/

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/of-truth-and-empathy/

[v] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anton-LaVey

[vi] Aleister-Crowley-s-Satanism.pdf

[vii] https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/satanism

[viii] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123653.The_Book_of_the_Law

[ix] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Paradise-Lost-epic-poem-by-Milton

[x] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/click-track/post/grammys-2012-the-last-exorcism-of-nicki-minaj-what-went-wrong-and-what-almost-went-right/2012/02/13/gIQAzAxMBR_blog.html

[xi] https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/02/05/grammy-awards/

[xii] https://youtu.be/jDuL_3TsdZE

[xiii] https://variety.com/2014/music/news/madonna-marries-gay-couples-at-the-grammys-2-1201072143/

[xiv] https://www.salon.com/2015/02/09/see_madonnas_demonic_grammy_performance_of_living_for_love/

[xv] https://www.self.com/story/beyonce-grammys-2017

[xvi] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/grammy-nominated-metal-band-ghost-addresses-satanic-accusations-music-styles-promote-way-worse-lifestyle-175537647.html

[xvii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNBDjJosK74

[xviii] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/9832006/kim-petras-transition-clarity-fame/

[xix] https://variety.com/2023/music/news/ted-cruz-slams-sam-smith-kim-petras-grammys-evil-performance-1235514438/

[xx] https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/kim-petras-talks-religion-trans-community-ahead-grammys-96847838

Book Review: The Magna Carta Of Humanity

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai’s Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom

In today’s world it is difficult to be online, at parties, with family, at work, or even just in public without hearing about the current cultural and political climate in the United States. Even if the Christian case-maker tries to avoid politics, they still confront culture and will be challenged with the hypocrisies of the Church and those who claimed to be members of the Church who just happened to also have founded The United States of America. And it is rare that challenges stop there.

People are passionate about one political view (or party) or another. Extremes on the different sides constantly accuse opposing sides of trying to destroy democracy, the Constitution, and even freedom itself. The rhetoric and apparent goals of different politicians can get our heads spinning out of control as we try to make sense of what is going on, how it affects us (and our future), what we can do about it to bring some measure of sanity in the conversations we inevitably get sucked into, and how we can respond logically with both gentleness and respect when the challenges come.

That is where I have found great value in Os Guinness’ “The Magna Carta of Humanity” (Hard copy, audiobook, Kindle). Guinness digs into the foundations, principles, and histories of the cultural and political divide in America. He compares and contrasts them in such a way that brings crystal clarity to the current situation. He points out that before we can even talk about “make America great again” (MAGA), we must truly understand what made America great in the first place. And before anyone wishes to reject the ideals that founded America, they must first truly understand those ideals and truly understand the implications of the ideals they are trading them for.

In my effort to help you determine if this is a book that is worth your time (and I believe it is), I will include a few of the skeletal points of the book, several of my favorite quotes (mainly from the Introduction- I don’t want to spoil too much), and my more specific recommendations.

My Awareness

I have to start with the podcast that drew my attention to this excellent book. Alisa Childers interviewed Dr. Os Guinness on her podcast (a great podcast that I highly recommend on its own, by the way) about whether or not Christians should be involved in politics. He not only answered in the affirmative but answered why that is the case and how America (and the world) has reached the point that such action is necessary. Here is the video:

Upon completing the podcast, I immediately purchased the audiobook and listened to it twice then picked up the hard copy to do a more analytical reading. This helped me to better grasp, understand, and appreciate the case presented by Guinness. It was definitely worth the additional time and effort spent.

Key Points:

The division in the USA today is due to two mutually exclusive views of freedom.
The first originates from the Exodus and was the foundation of the American Revolution of 1776. This view understands freedom as the individuals possessing the power to do what they ought to do. (“Sinai”)
The second view of freedom originates with ancient atheists and was the foundation of the French Revolution in 1789. This view understands freedom as individuals possessing complete autonomy. (“Paris”)
Paris, along with its many offshoots, have all proved disastrous for human life and liberty. Whereas Sinai (even when applied inconsistently) has been the only one that has resulted in true liberty.
Paris fails (and will continue to fail) because it has a false understanding of both the dignity and fallenness of humanity. On the contrary, Sinai recognizes these realities at its core.
The freedom of Sinai, though, is not self-sustaining. It requires individual self-awareness and focused and intentional dedication of each succeeding generation if it is to be maintained for future generations.
America must recognize the sins of its past and move forward. The way forward proposed by Paris (and the progressive left) is that of hate and revenge. While the way forward proposed by Sinai and Jesus (and even Martin Luther King Jr.) is that of love and forgiveness.
Because freedom is incompatible with hate and revenge, the way of Paris necessarily offers no hope of true freedom now or in the future. It pays lip service to the term while insisting on a contradictory concept.
America is currently in the process of switching from the ideals of 1776 to the ideals of 1789, and it, along with its citizens, will suffer the same fate as all the other nations that have tried its numerous versions (including Russia, China, and North Korea).
There is still time for America to stop the current trajectory and reclaim the love and forgiveness that is required of true freedom and reject the hate and revenge that has done nothing but prove disastrous.

Favorite Quotes:

“The great American republic is as deeply divided today as at any moment since just before the Civil War. Yet this time no Abraham Lincoln has stepped forward to address the evils, appeal to the Declaration of Independence, defend the better angel of the American character, demonstrate the magnificence of ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ in our time, and call for a ‘new birth of freedom.'”

“America appears to be abandoning the ideals of the American Revolution or ideas that are disastrous not only to America but to freedom and to the future of humanity.”

“The American crisis is a crisis of freedom and must be understood as such…The present crisis stems from the fact that over the last fifty years, major spheres of American society have shifted their loyalties and now support ideas that are closer to the French Revolution and its heirs rather than the American Revolution.”

“Such current movements as postmodernism, political correctness, tribal and identity politics, the sexual revolution, critical theory (or grievance studies), and socialism all come down from 1789 and have nothing to do with the ideas of 1776…They are the *dramatis personae* without which the drama of America’s current crisis cannot be understood or resolved.”

“The United States is suffering from profound philosophical cynicism, moral corruption, and serious social collapse…And too many Americans, especially those who are younger, have already been bewitched by the ideas coming from the other revolution, 1789, and not 1776…they now appear hell-bent on rejecting ideas from their past, which they have not tried to understand, even as they embrace ideas from the other revolution, which they have not examined as closely as they need to. Many in America see only their ancestors’ errors and at once think that makes them wiser and better than their ancestors. Yet they do not try to understand what their ancestors thought and why, let alone ask where the alternative ideas will lead them.”

“The Russian and Chinese revolutions represented the first successful establishment of secularist regimes in history; the Russian doing so in Europe and the Chinese in Asia. Along with Hitler’s Germany, the Russian and Chinese revolutions were also the first regimes to produce genuine totalitarianism. With the horrendous quartet of their total ideology, total mobilization, and total surveillance, and total repression, these totalitarian regimes became the epitome of oppressive evil and the complete denial of liberty.”

“Far from ushering in the final form of freedom and representing a second coming of Epicurus, [the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions]’ claims to be the true and reliable source of human freedom have been left in tatters by the history of their repressive secularist regimes in the twentieth century and the slaughter of millions of their own citizens.”

“Is it still possible in the advanced modern world to build societies with both freedom and order at the same time? To build and sustain communities and nations that demonstrate the highest values of human dignity, freedom, justice, equality, compassion, peace, and stability?”

“Historically, it was the Exodus Revolution and not the French Revolution, that lay behind the genius of America’s ordered freedom or covenantal and constitutional freedom. A rediscovery of the foundational principles of the Exodus Revolution is therefore the once and future secret of true revolutionary faith and a sure path to freedom, justice, equality, and peace.”

“The…American Revolution [is] decisively different from the French Revolution, and the future of freedom depends on appreciating the differences and choosing between them.”

“America cannot endure permanently half 1776 and half 1789. The compromises, contradictions, hypocricies, inequities, and evils have built up unaddressed. The grapes of wrath have ripened again, and the choice before America is plain. Either America goes forward best by going back first, or America is about to reap a future in which the worst will once again be the corruption of the best.“

“Will the coming generation return to faith in God and to humility or continue to trust in the all-sufficiency of reason, punditry, and technocracy and the transformative power of politics?”

“The future for freedom and humanity is in the balance, as Sinai spells freedom for the future whereas Paris has so far spelled out freedom betrayed and the coming of a long night of expanding statism, surveillance, and repression.”

“This is not a plea for some special protection or exemption for faith. It is time and past time to set out the debate in its fullest terms and to recognize that the sequel to this generation’s choices will be consequential and historic.”

Recommendations:

While I believe that every reader, who takes the time to read the book seriously, would have much to gain from it, I do believe this book is of special interest for several groups:

Anyone who is involved in political discussions online or in person. Having a firm grasp on the sources of disagreement will guide us in how to address those disagreements. Recognizing areas of agreement will build a bridge that those we disagree with can cross to accepting the truth that we wish to communicate. Having those of these in our minds will help keep us calm, respectful, loving, and confident in discussion and will keep the discussion focused and productive.
Any scientist. When untrained and unlearned politicians sense a threat to their power, they will censor scientific research and the scientists (even if the research doesn’t legitimately provide a threat). Scientists will not be permitted to do research freely nor will they even be able to pretend to (much less, actually) follow the evidence where it leads. This is the way of Paris and 1789. All these naturalists and New Atheists who think that “science” is the end-all/be-all: they are about to reap a world that will destroy everything they have worked for, everything they are working towards, and everything they cherish. Not because they conceded to belief in God and man’s sinfulness, but because they explicitly rejected God and his moral authority over all individuals including those in government who have power over them. Let’s also not forget that this is not limited to politicians; it extends to corporations and those in power there as well. This similarly applies to any educator, researcher, and creative.
Anyone who supports the views of postmodernism, Critical Theory, tribal politics, identity politics, Marxism, socialism, and/or communism. Dr. Guinness shows how hate and revenge are at the core of these ideas and that history demonstrates that each of these ends in disaster for the individual who holds to them and nations that rule by them, no matter how they are applied; and any “new” ideas of how to apply them are doomed to fail as well.
Private and Home Educators. It is important that American and World history be taught with an eye to its application to the children we are teaching. We teach history not merely for trivial information, but so that our children will not make the same mistakes of the past. Freedom is not self-sufficient. It must be taught and applied to the world around our children so they can see the importance of this part of their education and what will happen is they too become “bewitched” by the glitter of Paris. Also, if there ever was a time to teach students the evidence for Christianity, it is today (see Christian apologists and theologians below).
Christian apologists and theologians. Os Guinness’ discussions and case depend highly upon the truth of several ideas that Christian apologists commonly (and maybe not so commonly) defend, thus he gives renewed urgency in showing these to be true to the world. They include: Obviously, God’s existence, but also man being created in the Image of God, human fallenness, trust (biblical faith and not blind faith), objective morality, human dignity, human equality, libertarian free will (properly understood, of course), the historicity of the exodus, truth, knowledge, and numerous more that I’m sure you will see as you come across topics you frequently address. Also, the utopian promises of Paris cannot ever be fulfilled by anyone or any government because they are false and do not reflect reality. It is important to show others that these are false so that they do not continue to trust the claims of Paris and its off-shoots and reap its consequences. Ultimately, this book can serve as a highlight several strong, basic human desires- freedom and justice that cannot ever be fully and perpetually fulfilled in this life because of sin; it is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ and the truth of his resurrection that there is ultimate hope for love and forgiveness now perpetually the future when He returns.
Pastors and Church Leaders. In today’s culture that is accepting a “progressive” and false gospel that is often grounded in postmodernism and is focused on social justice and politics, it is important to see the differences between those ideas that are sneaking into the Church, how they differ from Scripture and the world we live in, and the disastrous results if your congregation accepts them. You do not have to have a bent towards the political in your church, just a passion for truth and defending it (see Christian apologists and theologians, above)

SES president: Heretical Cambridge sermon claiming Christ had a ‘trans body’ is sign of evil in world today

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Judge Phil Ginn

‘I would much rather trust the true Christ than a blatantly false figment of someone’s misguided imagination’

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Parishioners at Trinity College chapel, a constituent college of the University of Cambridge, were stunned and horrified when junior research fellow Joshua Heath preached a sermon claiming that due to select works of historical art, Christ had a “trans body.”[i]

Despite the cries of heresy during the sermon, Dr. Michael Banner, the dean of Trinity College, said Heath raised “legitimate” speculation about the gender of Christ, claiming his sermon “suggested that we might think about these images of Christ’s male/female body as providing us with ways of thinking about issues around transgender questions today.”

Judge Phil Ginn, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES, www.ses.edu), responded to this outlandish speculation, warning Christians against the false doctrines espoused by the misguided and to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel.

Ginn stated, “In the year 167 BC, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured the city of Jerusalem and laid waste to the capitol of Judaism. In doing so, he desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig on an altar to Zeus, which had been constructed over the holiest portion of the Jewish Temple. Sadly, desecration of holy places continues to this day despite the warning from 1 Corinthians 3:17 that if ‘any man defiles the temple of God, him shall God destroy.’

Such is the case with junior research fellow Joshua Heath and even more unfortunately with Dr. Michael Banner, a Dean at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. As reported by Fox News, Mr. Heath apparently preached a sermon in which he claimed that works of art portraying the crucifixion and death of Jesus essentially contemplated the martyrdom of a ‘trans Christ.’ Going even further in his malaise, Heath concluded from his observation of the paintings that the spear wound in Christ’s side ‘takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance.’ Cries of heresy arose from the crowd, but amazingly Dean Banner came to the defense of the blasphemy. Cambridge, of course, labeled the message as ‘thought provoking academic inquiry in keeping with open debate and dialogue.’

“I am sure that Mr. Heath is thankful that someone in authority like the Dean and the Cambridge University leadership came to his defense with their words of support. However, I would tend to lend greater credence to what the Apostle Paul had to say about heretical words and actions desecrating the holiness of God: ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth’ (Romans 1:18). Paul goes even further: ‘For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened’ (Romans 1:21). Finally, Paul says this in the last verse of Romans 1: ‘Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.’”

Ginn concluded, “At Southern Evangelical Seminary we are well familiar with the Latin phrase ‘Coram Deo.’ Simply put, it means to live your life as though you are doing so before the very face of God. We constantly are reminding ourselves and our students to live worthy of the calling of God on our lives. That is why we are standing steadfast in the truth of the Gospel. We hold fast to the inerrant and infallible word of God because we know that it is by the Word of God that our lives will be judged. My prayer is that Mr. Heath, Dean Banner, and all of Cambridge University will come to know the true Messiah who gave his life for the sins of the world and rose on the third day victorious over death. I speak for SES and myself when I say that I would much rather trust the true Christ than a blatantly false namby-pamby figment of someone’s misguided imagination.”

Judge Phil Ginn was appointed president of SES in April 2021 after a distinguished career as both a lawyer and a judge. Over the course of his 22-year judicial career, he was privileged to hold court in almost 50% of the county seats in North Carolina. He holds a B.A. from Appalachian State University, a J.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Doctor of Ministry from Southern Evangelical Seminary. Prior to his appointment as SES president, Judge Ginn served as SES Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

SES is proud to announce the upcoming release of “Steadfast: In a World of Confusion, Know Why You Believe.”[ii] This new 10-week study for small groups doubles as a seminary primer course and will give every believer game-changing training for living the Christian faith in today’s world. The study will feature exciting sessions from select SES professors. For more information about the upcoming study, click here.

The mission of SES is to train men and women, based on the inerrant and infallible written Word of God, for the evangelization of the world and the defense of the historic Christian faith. SES offers a range of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees (along with several for-credit certificates) that uniquely integrate theology, philosophy, and apologetics to build a complete and systematic Christian worldview.

Footnotes:

[i] Cambridge dean defends sermon about Jesus’ ‘trans body,’ ‘vaginal’ side wound blasted as ‘heresy’

[ii] In a World of Confusion, Know Why You Believe STEADFAST 10-Week Small Group Apologetics Study

Can We Legislate Morality?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Melissa Dougherty

Since the 1960s, there’s been a measurable dramatic decline in moral ethics here in the United States. Some would argue that it’s been in a general decline since the dawn of humanity, myself included. However, here in the United States, the phrase “legislating morality” has been brought up more and more. Depending on the generation, many people have not heard this phrase or even understood what it means. Some use it as a cliche term to throw in the face of the person trying to promote certain morals that should be either lawful or not.

I say that similar to the argument of “there is no absolute truth,” saying that we can’t legislate morality is simply self-defeating. Everyone everywhere intrinsically knows right from wrong. Many people would see that it’s obvious to enforce right from wrong lawfully. As Romans 2:15 says, mankind has God’s law written on our hearts. This is also echoed in our Declaration of Independence. Whose morality are we talking about, however? First, it must be established whether morality can and should be legislated at all.

How Can You Even Legislate Morality at all?

The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was that they avoided the inevitable pendulum swing that many governments fall victim to by finding a middle ground. Instead of appealing to religion or a secular government, they appealed to the Moral Law to make their case. They then legislated those laws and unalienable rights in the constitution. What makes this so clever is that it forbids the government from establishing a national religion, but it doesn’t prevent it from establishing a national morality. Their appeal to the Moral Law isn’t confined to just the United States. They’re appealing to an Authority that many cultures and people have appealed to in the past. The Founding Fathers believed these freedoms were morally right and needed to be preserved through legislation. This is literally legislating morality! This is also in the First Amendment. The government cannot establish a state-supported religion and will not force people to practice a particular religion. Unlike the popular political rhetoric we hear, this isn’t meant to shut up religious people.

Spoiler Alert

Nobody needs the Bible to tell them right from wrong. We intrinsically know this. This is why we see cultures have the same appeal to the Moral Law in some form. They didn’t get together and decide this. Separated over thousands of miles, over the span of every continent, without ever communicating, people knew this Law.

Fascinating

However, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a suppression of this within ourselves. This is where it gets muddy. This doesn’t just go for the far-left secular humanist but also for the extreme right. When making rules around society or individually, we appeal to this Law. But it doesn’t always mean it’s black and white. There are some people who want to enact Old Testament law in the United States. On the other extreme, secular humanists want to restrict any religion at all in our country. They want to take away any appeal to a Higher Being. Both are in error.

What should be legislated is Moral Law.

These self-evident truths agree with many biblical principles because of their common source— God. The purpose isn’t to create a Christianized country. The point is to create a moral one. This then spirals into a question about who’s morals. Is the individual supposed to decide for themselves what’s right or wrong? Or are we to appeal to a standard higher than our own? This is a core issue in this debate.

The thing is that without God? All we have left is self.

As history has shown, establishing a divine rule by force over non-believers doesn’t work and is quite damaging. The same idea applies to forcing people to abandon their moral compass for vices. Secular Humanism reinforces the desired authority of the “self.” As Natasha Crain has said in her book Faithfully Different, feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. For example, this is why when we debate with someone pro-choice, they can’t ultimately say when life begins or what exactly is in the mother’s womb. They must appeal to the subjective perspective of the mother and say it’s up to her to decide what it is. Ultimately, they must suspend truth and reality to be consistent with secular humanism.

Right and wrong are not determined. It’s discovered. The Moral Law is self-evident, but people have a way of suppressing this when it interferes with their own desires. As discussed, when our country was founded and the Declaration of Independence was written, Thomas Jefferson appealed to the Moral Law. This avoids the intolerance of a highly religious government and the moral relativism of a secular government. It’s clear to see which way the pendulum is swinging in our country and why the appeal to the Moral Law that our country was based on is the obvious answer. This only works if people actually follow these rules.

The Moral Law is not an invented morality but an inherited one. If we take away this Law, there is no objective standard. In other words, relativists don’t really have “morality.” Morality is doing what’s right, not what someone finds desirable to their life or situation.

Can We Agree to Disagree on Predestination?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By RYAN LEASURE

At Grace Bible Church, we have a statement of faith that all members must affirm. It’s a fine statement of faith (though a little long if you ask me). And it provides a nice summary of basic Christian belief. That said, not all doctrines are created equal. Some doctrines are absolutely essential while others are less important. How, then, should Christians “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) without contending for too much or too little?

In other words, how do we know which doctrines are worth fighting for and which ones are not? To help with these matters, we have adopted what Al Mohler once dubbed a “Theological Triage.”

Theological Triage

The word “triage” comes from a French word which means “to sort.” And if you’ve ever been to an emergency room, you’re familiar with the sorting process that takes place. If someone shows up with the sniffles, they’re most likely put at the back of the line. If someone shows up holding their decapitated leg, they’re put up front.

Doing theological triage follows a similar principle. As Christians, we must think through doctrine and decide which doctrines get sorted to the front (first-order issues) and which ones get pushed to the back (third-order issues).

At every membership class, I explain this concept and teach newcomers which doctrines are essential and which ones we can agree to disagree on. Let’s consider the three categories in turn.

First-Order Doctrines

First-order doctrines are the absolute essential doctrines to the Christian faith. These are doctrines that every true believer should affirm without hesitation. These doctrines include:

God is a Trinity
God is the creator of all things
Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Jesus is both God and man
Humans are made in God’s image
All humans are sinners and they must repent of their sin
Jesus died on a cross for our sins and rose again from the dead
People are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
The Bible is God’s inspired word
Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead

You get the idea. These beliefs are so fundamental to the faith that if someone were to deny them, we would say that person belongs to a different faith system altogether.

Second-Order Doctrines

Second-order doctrines are not essential doctrines of the Christian faith, but they are essential for church membership. That is to say, even though people may disagree with us on these issues, we would not call into question their standing with God. We may think they’re wrong and think they should reconsider their views. But we would not question their faith altogether. That said, if people are going to be part of the same church, they need to agree on these second-order issues:

The recipients of baptism
Women Pastors
Revelatory gifts (speaking in tongues or prophecy)

Our statement of faith is clear on the first two points. We baptize believers and believe God has ordained for qualified men to serve as pastors. Our statement of faith doesn’t speak to revelatory gifts in the same way. So one could technically classify it as a third-order doctrine. But I suspect if someone felt strongly about publicly prophesying or speaking in tongues before the church, they would feel compelled to go to a different church where those types of practices were more accepted.

Third-Order Doctrines

Third-order doctrines are not essential to the Christian faith, nor are they essential for church membership. That is to say, church members are free to disagree on these matters. This does not mean, however, that these doctrines are unimportant (we can think of less important beliefs). It does not mean that we should not study the Scriptures to try and make sense of them as best as we can. What it does mean is that we are not going to divide over these issues.

Now sadly, it’s these third-order issues that have led to more church splits than anything else. But at Grace Bible Church, we are committed to remaining unified around the main things while allowing charitable disagreement around the not-so-main things. These third-tier doctrines include:

Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Age of the Earth
Millennial or tribulation views

Our statement of faith does not take a hard stand on any of these issues. Therefore, one does not need to affirm Calvinism or Arminianism in order to be a member in good standing at Grace Bible Church. In fact, our church leadership has disagreements on these matters! The same goes for one’s understanding of the age of the earth and the millennium. Good faithful Christians throughout history have disagreed on these matters which leads us to believe the issues aren’t as clear as the first and second-order doctrines.

What we encourage, then, is for each member to act charitably towards others with whom they disagree. We should never ridicule someone or call their faith into question because they land in a different place on one of these third-tier issues. We can agree to disagree or even study the topic together with the hopes of learning from one another. Let’s remember, though we’re all trying to get it right, none of us are infallible.

Dividing Over Doctrine

Placing doctrines in their proper tiers allows the church “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It protects the church from contending too much or too little.

Liberals have historically contended for too little. They have tended to press first-tier doctrines down to the third tier. They’ve adopted an “agree to disagree” mentality when it comes to important matters such as Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead! On the flip side, fundamentalists have historically contended for too much. They have pushed third-tier issues up to the first tier and have divided over less-than-critical matters.

Doing theological triage protects us from both of these errors.

The Disrespecting Marriage Act

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By John D. Ferrer

Marriage is under fire… again.

The red wave in November might have helped put out the fire, but not when the wave is just a trickle. Unless something wild happens in Arizona and Georgia, the Democrats will retain the Senate majority. Republicans will gain a slight majority in the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t start till January. That leaves a one-month window for a democrat-majority House and Senate to cram everything they can into law before New Year’s. One of those cram jobs is the “Respect for Marriage Act.”[i]

Following Senate majority leader Chuck Shumer, Democrats are expected to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The bill briefly mentions interracial marriages, which no one is disputing. that’s been legal in every state for decades now. That’s not the contentious part. This bill is written in direct opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act[ii] (1996), and intended to build on the momentum of the Obergfell decision (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Broadly speaking, the Respect for Marriage act would guarantee that any type of marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in every state. If you stop and think about that, it can get pretty absurd pretty quickly. Here’s the official summary of the bill.

Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

117th Congress, H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Summary[iii]

Democrats seem to have a winning issue here though. The “marriage equality” rhetoric plays well to progressives, the LGBT lobby, and many libertarians. That means more publicity, votes, and money. As legislation, the bill already passed the House, and it has the votes to pass in the senate. It should have stalled out in the senate, for missing the 60 votes needed for cloture (ending debate/filibuster). But the 50 democrat votes are now joined by 12 Republicans supporting the bill.

Roy Blunt of Missouri
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
Susan Collins of Maine
Joni Ernst of Iowa
Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Rob Portman of Ohio
Mitt Romney of Utah
Dan Sullivan of Alaska
Thom Tillis of North Carolina
Todd Young of Indiana

This means, the Respect for Marriage Act can be put to a final vote, passing with a simple majority (51 votes). It will become the law of the land unless something drastic happens like senate democrats changing their vote, or a state election being overturned.

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

Those 12 republican votes are a little surprising, because republicans have mostly opposed redefining marriage. Plus, an earlier version of the bill raised concerns about religious freedom. The bill looked like it would force people to violate their conscience or their religion. Even the most liberal republicans and RINOs would have to reject that. Remember the cake-baker case[iv]? What about the flower-shop case[v]? Or the wedding-planner case[vi]? Without a doubt, there are left-wing legal teams determined to force Christians to violate their conscience and their religion (not to mention sacrifice free enterprise and freedom of speech). So, no matter what lobbyists may say, religious freedom is a live issue facing active threats.

That, however, was the old version of the bill. A new version[vii] was amended to protect religious freedom, at least for individuals and communities. With that revision in place, those 12 republicans were free to dissent from Republican ranks.

But does it protect religious freedom? A little, but not nearly as much as it may seem. It protects religious freedom at an individual and community level (like churches), but only generally, and only when it doesn’t include the state. It says:

“In General – Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the [US] Constitution.”

117th Congress H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Sec., 6, line 22[viii].

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

One big problem with this amendment is the squishy phrase: “In General.” It refers to a general principle, and since the principle applies only generally, that means many times it doesn’t apply. Simply put, “generally true” means “often false.” In legal terms, squishy words like that tend to become escape clauses. They’re loopholes, so litigious activists can get around basic rights.

Plus, you can’t build much on squishy words. They aren’t absolute, universal, or even easy to clarify. So, it’s not a strong foundation for legal protections. Anyone who’s life and livelihood is on the line (cake-bakers and wedding planners included), they have only a cold reassurance that “maybe federal law will respect your religious freedom.”

Another liability with squishy legal terms is they can squishify and dissolve whatever they touch. Whatever follows from “In General” is only generally true, so there can be exceptions. Would your case be an exception? Who knows? Instead of clear, firm, and absolute statements protecting people’s religious freedoms, this amendment offers only a generality, a great big “Maybe?!” That’s little reassurance for the next small-business owner facing a class-action lawsuit with the full-force of the LGBT-lobby against them. A squishy fortress is no fortress at all.

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

Another big problem with the amendment is that there’s not a single word protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in the form of state laws and elections. Voting is free speech. You can’t be legally forced to vote against your conscience. If the people across the state were to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment or a particular law, that’s an expression of free speech. The Respect for Marriage Act threatens to strike down any competing state-level constitutions or laws, never minding the voice and conscience of the people who voted that legislation into existence.

Suppose for example, Iowans were to pass a law, across the state of Iowa, reflecting their deeply held beliefs about adoption practices and gay couples. If that law ran head-on into the Respect for Marriage Act, then the federal law would have right of way in the collision. The federal law would be violating people’s freedom of speech (in voting) and freedom of religion (in voting their conscience).

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

Setting aside the shaky amendment, there’s a deeper problem with the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a glaring misnomer. It’s not respecting marriage at all, not unless we abandon the standing institution of marriage from the start of human history till about five minutes ago. Al Mohler calls it “Orwellian” because it hides a profound disrespect for marriage behind a sneaky politispeak title: “Respect for Marriage Act” (see, Al Mohler, The Briefing[ix], Nov. 17, 2022 – 23:42)

This Act treats marriage as merely a social construct that people can define and redefine at will. It’s as if states can create a new category of marriage, at will. But that framing runs contrary to human history, natural law, not to mention Scripture. Marriage isn’t a social construct, it’s more like a natural law, or even a force-of-nature. It’s built-in. It’s something we discover as a facet of God’s creation. We didn’t create marriage. God did (Genesis 2:19-25; Matthew 19:4-6). It’s also a gracious gift from God. We’re in no place to take God’s gift of marriage and say, “God, you didn’t design it right; here let me fix it up for you.”

Ethically speaking, we’re playing God if we think we have the authority to redefine marriage according to trending fashions. It’s pretty disrespectful towards God and towards marriage, to invent other partnerships that history, nature, and God never called “marriage” and think we have somehow expanded the institution of marriage to include them. We can play around with words all we want, but the institution of marriage precedes us. It’s bigger than us. And it comes from God. So, it isn’t subject to our language games. We can’t redefine marriage any more than we can replace the wings of a plane mid-flight.

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

It’s been said that people should be careful they’re not so open minded that their brains fall out. The same applies to an open definition of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act fortifies an open view of marriage to where any state can change their definition and all other states would have to accept it, no matter how ridiculous that redefinition may be. Imagine if Utah reinstated polygamy. Or, if Texas lowered the age of marital consent to 12 (no offense Texas). Or, if California approved bigamy (2+ marriages at once). Or New York granted marriage status to any two roommates seeking tax benefits. Or if Florida granted dolphins “person” status so people can marry them. Or if Oregon allowed twelve different people to “identify” as just two people in marriage – every other state would be forced to accept any or all of these arrangements.

Bear in mind, marriage is what it is, regardless of terminology. Every state would have to affirm a lie, accepting as “marriage” what, in reality, is not a marriage. Every state in the union would have to adjust their health codes, family laws, child-protective services, domestic abuse laws, employment ethics, tax codes, health insurance, medical standards, adoption laws, housing and real-estate categories, and everything else impacted by these alternative “marriages”. All that because a federal law is demanding that everyone in every state: “Obey, or else.” Even if we set aside the religious, and ethical problems with this legislation, it’s so monstrously impractical it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

To be clear here, I don’t think society should prevent two mentally-fit unmarried adults from marrying each other. Even if they’re gay, bi-, or trans, they have the same natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. No one is stopping gay people from participating in their equal right to marry; and marriage is with someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage has meant for thousands of years, across all cultures, and all established world religions, to where it’s been a cultural universal and a common-sense admission by everyone everywhere till about 5 minutes ago. It’s redundant to even call it “traditional marriage.” It’s just called marriage. We’ve had to clarify in recent years that we (Christian conservatives) mean the same thing by “marriage” that almost everyone across history has meant by “marriage.” We mean it in the traditional sense. We don’t mean it in the recently revised socially-constructed sense. We’re talking about the long-tested and well-proven institutional bedrock for societies across every remotely successful civilization in history. We’re talking about the sacred social institution whereby women are protected, men are disciplined, and children are raised more effectively than any other family model. Even polygamous cultures treated marriage as one-man plus one woman; they just allowed the wealthier citizens to have more than one marriage at a time.

We already had marriage equality before worldly forces began playing language games with the term “marriage,” and before subversives began launching an open assault on the nuclear family. Not only did we have marriage equality, we had civil protections and privileges for marriage, we had respect for marriage, we even had healthier marriages and stronger families before all this.

If we Christian conservatives were willing to do the hard-work to protect and preserve the better parts of family-friendly faith-based culture, we might not be in this predicament. But there’s no sense in bemoaning past mistakes. we can’t change them. We can however learn from our mistakes, so we don’t have to repeat them.

At this point, the Respect for Marriage act is Exhibit Z in a long line of evidence proving how worldly forces are dead-set on subverting institution marriage and with it the nuclear family. Fellow believers and social conservatives have an upward hill to climb here. But God is still sovereign. And there’s still time for your state representative to take courage and do the right thing. Pray hard folks. Get the word out. And maybe write your local representative and tell them to vote against this Disrespecting Marriage Act.

What follows is the text of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). Accessed 20 Nov 2022 at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=947&s=6

H. R. 8404

TO REPEAL THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND ENSURE RESPECT FOR STATE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATE

July 20, 2022

Received; read the first time

July 21, 2022

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

Chapter 115[x] of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2022.Attest:

Footnotes

[i] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

[ii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396/text

[iii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404?r=947&s=6

[iv] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

[v] https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/91615-2-0.html

[vi] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-10/303-Creative-cert-stage.pdf

[vii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[viii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[ix] https://open.spotify.com/episode/08Prpo2UN4zXtOTROWJBZY

[x] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter115-front&num=0&edition=prelim

Tinkerbell (2008)

The Truth About Tinkerbell

Identity in Christ

A Lesson from American Idol

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

1. The Design of the Body Proves There are Only Two Genders

2. Transgenderism Must Presuppose Fixed Genders

3. You Can Change Your Mind But Not Your Biology

4. Sex Is Not Assigned At Birth

5. There is No Basis for Transgender Rights

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?

Feelings Aren’t All Bad

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

What should we make of this megahit?

Is this just a marketing ploy?

Is it just art?

Is it Satanic?

What wisdom can we glean from “Unholy”?

But what about Sam Smith and Kim Petras?

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai’s Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom

My Awareness

Key Points:

Favorite Quotes:

Recommendations:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Can You Even Legislate Morality at all?

Spoiler Alert

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Theological Triage

First-Order Doctrines

Second-Order Doctrines

Third-Order Doctrines

Dividing Over Doctrine

Recommended resources related to the topic:

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?**